Timothy George, Co-Author of Manhattan Declaration
From: Ralph Ovadal, Pastor of Pilgrims Covenant Church, Monroe, Wisconsin.
The Manhattan Declaration is an ungodly manifesto, contemptuous of the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is an ecumenical treatise, complete with a Romish gospel and shot through and through with popish error. Those evangelicals who have authored this document and who have led the way in signing it show themselves to be in rebellion to God. It is, in their case, a brazen manifesto of treason against the Lord Jesus Christ. And they are not friends but rather are enemies of Christian liberty in that they disobey and provoke the Author of liberty with their spiritual fornication, even wresting His word and corrupting His blood-bought church. It is the biblical duty of all faithful Christian pastors to stand against the evangelical authors of the Manhattan Declaration and all evangelicals who sign it or promote it in any way. Such betrayers of Christ and His church must be separated from and called to account by all faithful Christian ministers and people.
For a message speaking to this much needed, very strong public rebuke to the evangelical signers of The Manhattan Declaration, please listen here.
Christ Alone Wyoming 
Such ecumenical tripe as this declaration is par for the course for Timothy George. Sad situation. From such turn away.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more with Pastor Ralph Ovadal on this topic. It screams of heresy. Thank you for sharing this Brother Michael.
Was looking at his site and was sickened but not surprised by the actions of homosexuals towards this man. I have had my share of nasty things said to me for my views on homosexuality and abortion (both are based on Biblical beliefs, I don’t base either on political stuff).
LikeLike
Amen and amen!
The clarion call of the unvarnished truth rings clear like a silver bell on a cold, still winter’s night!
As the inimitable Spurgeon well said:
We must have no truce, no treaty with Rome. War! War! War! with her! There cannot be peace. She cannot have peace with us – we cannot have peace with her. She hates the true Church, and we can only say that the hatred is reciprocated. We would not lay a hand on her priests; we would not touch a hair of their heads. Let them be free; but we will attempt to destroy their doctrine from the face of the earth because it is the doctrine of demons. O God, let the Roman Catholic Church perish, let it be consumed in the smoke.
Regarding TMD, I left the following comment on another blog this morning:
Like many others I’ve read a number of articles, scanned through a number of combox discussions, and carefully considered the implications of TMD from across the Romanist, EOC, and Evangelical spectrum, and to be honest I’m struck by the sheer consistency of the positions being taken.
The Romanists are almost uniformly thrilled with the document, breathlessly gushing over the “unifying nature” of the document, and praising the “brave Protestants” who signed TMD thus far as they eagerly urge more to “come alongside” and sign their names to TMD.
The EOC proponents I’ve read are similarly situated in their joyous exuberance for TMD.
Now, this is not surprising in the least as both of these organizations are fundamentally based upon the premise of the church being a visible, “unified” corporate body. For them “unity” is an outward adherence to the forms, traditions, and ritualism of “the true church of Christ” which, ironically, both lay claim to being.
But it’s the evangelical (whatever that means) response that has been the most telling. In my estimation TMD has neatly subdivided this eclectic and theologically diverse group into four fairly distinct camps.
Group 1. – The true, saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is fundamentally central to what it means to be a Christian, and all other considerations are secondary. Co-belligerence with like-minded culture warriors is fine and commendable, but there’s a line in the sand at the Gospel, which may not be compromised by declaring sub-biblical apostate sects to be truly “Christian”, and then signing a declaration which yokes oneself to that abhorrent definition. If your professing church’s formal doctrines, dogmas, and confessions have gotten soteriology wrong, then that professing church lies outside of Biblical Christianity according to the scriptures and is, in fact, a sub-biblical apostate sect.
Group 2. – The true, saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is not fundamentally central to what it means to be a Christian, but is rather a secondary issue which may be conveniently set aside for co-belligerence with like-minded culture warriors, and it’s fine and commendable to sign a declaration which declares Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy to be truly “Christian” and to yoke oneself to that definition. The basis of the definition of what it means to be truly Christian can be boiled down to lowest common denominators such as a belief in the Trinity, the virgin birth, and the deity of Christ, all other considerations are secondary and don’t serve to define Christianity.
Group 3. – This eclectic group consists of hand-wringing, waffling signers of TMD who were sold a fine, high-sounding bill of goods, but who have subsequently developed severe cases of buyers’ remorse. Members of this group have variously defended signing TMD, finding comfort in appeals to authority, or else they have requested to have their names removed from TMD and publicly apologized for their lack of clarity on the absolute centrality of the Gospel, or else they resort to ad hominem style attacks on the utter “uncharitableness” and “spiritual myopia” of those comprising Group 1.
Group 4 – This group seems to mainly consist of post-modern libertines and radical latitudarian/egalitarians who decry TMD for not going far enough in its ecumenical spirit, and who denounce the document because it was drafted (and signed) mostly by middle-aged white guys, thus it’s an inherently hateful, divisive, bigoted and racist manifesto. Think Brian McLaren.
Perhaps this is the greatest irony, that the ecumenical, “unifying” intent of TMD has served to further divide evangelicalism. I for one am thankful for God’s providence which allowed TMD to be fashioned and set forth so that all can see who bowed the knee to the Ba’al of a false, temporal, man-made unity, who refused, and why.
Soli Deo Gloria!
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
I like the idea of standing up and trying to keep the government from infringing upon peoples religious rights.
I don’t like the ecumenical aspect of it though. That is the reason I haven’t signed it.
Perhaps they should have made it a secular document????
That probably would have brought it’s own problems with it as well. If something like this could be a secular document???
If John Macarthur is right in this sermon: http://defendingcontending.com/2009/11/30/macarthur-america-abandoned-by-god/
it doesn’t matter how many declarations are made and signed.
LikeLike
I guess it’s fine that you put this mans rebuke of the TMD on your site but He would also rebuke this very site if he found out that you or your readers used anything other than a King James Bible.
I like when you put up posts by right thinking Christian men but I disagree with putting up questionable men to prove a point, ex using Ralph Ovadal and his rebuking of TMD. R.C., Mac Arthur, and others where enough you don’t need to include crazies with them. That to me is doing what TMD signers did by using everyone you can get your hands on that agrees to prove a point despite what other beliefs they may hold.
I hope Im making sense, if not oh well.
Matthew
LikeLike
matthew birch – I take it you think God spoke the King’s English and personally approved that translation? I love the KJV myself but I know there are several good, credible English translations in addition to myriad translations in many languages – that honor the Lord and draw people to Him.
The Lord of Heaven spoke and men wrote His Words – in Hebrew and Greek. Good – and sometimes evil – men translated those autographs into what we use.
I would be interested to know why you think God uses or approves only the KJV.
LikeLike
matthew birch – If our stance was to only post articles and information from those who agreed with every jot and tittle of those on this website, I dare say we would not be posting much at all. Even amongst the editors of this site, we are going to have disagreements in certain areas; yet we consider each other as brethren and extend mercy to one another as we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour.
Secondly, your calling Ralph Ovadal “questionable” and a crazy because he holds to the KJV is wrong and totally uncalled for. As is your setting up your personal standard as to who is accepted to post from and who is not.
LikeLike
Amen! This is the kind of boldness and backbone true men and women of God must have to stand in this season of deception and apostasy. Thank you brother Michael for posting this. It stands to reason that opposing the growing ‘lovefest’ will bring about some sort of action, namely persecution; which brings me to this post from Chrystal at slaughtering the sheep. All may want to read her latest post, http://slaughteringthesheep.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/stand-strong-be-faithful/
Coram, thank you for that wonderful quote from a man God used mightily, Charles Spurgeon.
LikeLike
Manfred- I think you miss understood me. I don’t think KJV is the only good version. Ralph Ovadal does, not me. I use ESV myself.
Brother Michael-Seems like you take things way to personal. I was making a comment in the comment section on something I wanted to comment on. I fully admit I could be wrong I just made a comment. Do you only like people to comment when they agree with you? Maybe you were just having a bad day.
First- You said “If our stance was to only post articles and information from those who agreed with…We wouldn’t post anything at all” point taken.
Second- And I really want to know what you think. If a Pastor came up to you and said you were sinning because you use an ESV and said you were unfit for the Pastorate because of that wouldn’t you think that was a little “crazy” , wrong and at least that he was misinformed?
From what I know of Ralph Ovadal he believes it’s KJ or THE HIGHWAY!
Thanks a lot
Matthew
LikeLike
matthew birth – You were making a comment on a comment you made in a comment and admit you might be wrong. Yes, I think making a personal attack is wrong using ad hominem as you did without any true substance. That is why I replied and no, sarcasm not withstanding, I was not having a bad day.
I commented as you made a personal attack against a fellow Christian with zero substance but just ad hominem; That was the heart of the issue which I took offense too and your loose use of words like crazy and questionable. If that is so for those who hold to the KJV then there is a whole lot of folks you can include in that list who take a stand on a common translation within their body seeking to find the best one based on manuscript and other evidence.
One example that comes to mind is the Cork Free Presbyterian Church (http://www.corkfpc.com/nivleaflet.html). More crazies? What about the Trinitarian Bible Society or the late John Robbins or Gordon Clark who dismissed many of the modern versions due to their studies? Even the late Walter Martin spoke against many of the modern versions; specifically gender neutral Bibles. Are all these unfit for the pastorate?
LikeLike
matthew birth – My apologies for misunderstanding. I realized after I posted.
I’ve reviewed the Trinitarian Bible Society’s critique of the ESV and appreciate many of their concerns – especially the absence of “by (or through) his blood” in Col 1:14. I am not worried about the vast majority of changes from singular male to non-gender specific plural as they do communicate the intended meaning,
It’s one thing to recognize that only the autographs are inerrant; it’s a whole ‘nother thing to hold any given translation as THE BIBLE in any language and condemn the use of all others – though many ought be approached with great care.
I didn’t see any “crazy” stuff on Ovadal’s web site, claiming Satan wrote the ESV. (according to many, he was busy writing the NIV 🙂
LikeLike
Manfred-Are you sure the ESV changes the male to non gender specific plural? If so to me that is a pretty big deal. Are you sure your not thinking about TNIV?
Thanks
Matthew
LikeLike
matthew birch,
Here’s an example of the type of gender change that I don’t see as a big deal:
Psalms 32:1
KJV: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
ESV: Blessed is the one whose k transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Does anyone really think this verse applies only to men?
The scope of gender changes made in the TNIV change the meaning of the text in many places – it’s a whole different scope and motive.
LikeLike
Manfred- Thanks
LikeLike
Brother Michael- Thanks for your response.
1. Can you answer my above question about, What would you think if someone said you were not a true Christian if you don’t use KJV? Would you not think they were wrong or misinformed?
2. What are the best translations, the closest to the Hebrew and Greek? I always thought KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV were good am I wrong? What would you suggest?
Thanks,
Matthew
LikeLike
Matthew Birch
1. If I knew that someone said that and had the facts presented to me, then most certainly I would say they were wrong.
2. My question would be closest to what Hebrew and Greek as the different versions use different manuscripts and have a different philosophy as to which to use.
Peace
LikeLike
I believe that in the light of scripture the professing evangelicals who signed TMD ought to be admonished and marked out per 2 Thess. 3:13-15 and 2 Cor. 6:14-18 because they have erred greatly against the Gospel. This is not a Romans 14 issue.
Based upon what I’m reading in the blogosphere it’s clear that there are many who are in agreement with this position. This being the case in my view the next obvious step resulting from TMD is the question of applying proper church discipline to the rogue signers, whether they stand in the pulpit or sit in the pew.
I’d like to ask DefCon readers to weigh in – in your opinion how should the process of church discipline begin?
Since TMD is a very public document and the signers names and church/denominational affiliations are therefore very public should local bodies comb TMD for their pastors, elders, deacons, and members and bring forth formal charges?
I don’t believe this is a Matthew 18 issue because the sin isn’t private against a brother, but rather seems to require public admonishment, marking out, and sharp rebuke.
I’ve not read about anybody else discussing the proper application of church discipline over TMD yet, but this is God’s prescribed way to maintain the purity of Christ’s church, and it’s not an option, but a commandment.
What say you?
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
CD,
I agree this isn’t a Matt 18 issue. Here’s my personal rule for how to handle these types of issues: If I have a personal or support (such as sending money) relationship with an individual, then I believe it my duty to ask what’s going on, expressing my specific concerns. If there is no substantive reply, I am free to go public if I deem it of value to the people of God and not for my own vindication.
Such was the case with me and Promise Keepers, http://menofhonorministry.org/Discipleship/PK.htm
Tony Evans (nothing made public), and my former church http://menofhonorministry.org/Testimony/Awamkening.htm
It is a shame on the church and individuals concerned if “running away” is the conflict resolution method employed.
LikeLike
How should it begin?
It should’nt.
Look at the reasons why Al Mohler signed it, is that worthy of Church Discipline? I dont believe so.
We need to be very careful here.
And how can discipline occur outside of Matthew 18?
LikeLike
Matthew,
Noble, high-sounding reasons for our actions don’t constitute a justification to treat the scriptures as a wax nose that we can twist and shape as we see fit.
I’ve read the statements put forth by Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan, and they have both clearly attempted to take the position that TMD is not a theological or gospel document, however this is an indefensible position. There is a sense, I suppose, in which this is commendable; but in truth there’s really no other ground for them to take is there?
Were they to affirm that TMD is a theological or gospel document, then they would have signed up to a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Among the many great ironies of TMD is that its architects, such as Chuck Colson for example, strongly affirm that it is a theological document, going so far as to claim:
“This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.” – TMD (and ECT) architect Chuck Colson
Of course men like Mohler and Duncan may stand on the other side and say “No it isn’t!”, but at the end of the day their names are on the document along with Colson’s, and the Romanists, and the EOC ecumenists, and to the man on the street all those voices are sweetly in one accord – and on the record – as united together as “Christians proclaiming the gospel of grace”.
This being said, no one that I’ve read, myself included, has taken the position that believers ought not work alongside unbelievers for the common benefit of humanity, this has never been the issue with TMD.
The issue with TMD is that it unequally yokes the true saving gospel of Jesus Christ, and false soul-damning non-gospels together under an ecumenical umbrella that states in no uncertain terms that those who hold these irreconcilable views are united in the Christian faith proclaiming the gospel.
This is simply a lie.
Romanists and the EOC both proclaim another gospel, a false gospel, which thing is anathema according to the scriptures. One cannot be a true Christian while embracing a false gospel, and this is the grave error of TMD, and the error of those who tacitly approved the lie by signing their names.
Please understand that I’m not questioning Mohler’s or Duncan’s commitments to the gospel, nor am I in any position to do so. No one who knows anything about Ligon Duncan or Al Mohler questions where they stand on the gospel.
Yet TMD itself lays claim to being a theological/gospel document, and there’s simply no avoiding this pesky fact. TMD specifically references “the gospel” in several contexts, and in doing so by ecumenical necessity it must redefine “the gospel” as something other than salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the praise and glory of God alone. Yet anything other than the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and the declaration of righteousness by Christ’s merits alone is representative of “another gospel” (see Galatians).
For example TMD states:
“Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace…”
and again:
“It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.”
TMD places the Romanist, EOC, and evangelical “gospels” on the same footing, thereby equating them as “the gospel”. This is both false and misleading, yet the signers of the declaration necessarily give tacit approval to this redefinition of “the gospel”.
This is too high a price to pay, my friend.
I strongly disagree with the brothers who signed TMD, and I pray that I do so in brotherly love, because love without truth is mere sentimentality, and truth without love is tyranny.
In my estimation those who signed ought to be admonished and marked out per 2 Thess. 3:13-15 and 2 Cor. 6:14-18 because they have erred greatly. This is not a Romans 14 issue.
May the Lord of Hosts grant us wisdom, discernment, and the boldness to speak the truth in love.
In Christ,
CD
P.S. – You asked: “And how can discipline occur outside of Matthew 18?”
My reply? Galatians 2:11.
P.S.S. – This is not Mohler’s first foray into ecumenical evangelicalism.
LikeLike
CD –
I certainly cannot add to your comments and very much appreciate your boldness and cogent posts summarizing what I believe to be the heart of the matter regarding TMD. To me Mohler’s response (as one example) is double-speak and any thinking Christian will shake their head at him presenting this to us to believe. It is as if we are all dolts out here and will accept his word carte blanche even when his statements are totally contradictory. Yet this is exactly what happens when one reaches the vaunted heights of Christiandom and sits in the upper seat where his word for many can nary be questioned no matter how wrong he might be (think Billy Graham, Mark Driscoll, etc.)
And, as is always the case, I imagine there is a lot going on behind the scenes in ecumenical partnerships that we don’t see. What TMD did is to peel back the curtain for us to see another glimpse into what is going on out there in Christiandom and where many stand.
I agree in support ceasing for the signers and rebukes being sent forth where I honestly believe they are long overdue in many cases. Is not Rick Warren a Southern Baptist? When has he been rebuked by the hierarchy of the SBC and defroked? How many others are there like him that are given a free ride? Are there not (and I’m asking as I’m not in SBC circles) scores of Masons infecting the SBC?
What about Timothy George; is he not a dean of a SB seminary? Indeed he is yet he is given a free ride and retains his post to infect the minds of countless youth with his ecumenical views. How many more ecumenists and Romanist sympathizers are there within the SBC that are out of the closet with their damnable views yet continue along their merry way infecting the flock?
I use the SBC as just an example of a much larger problem where the church is trying to be all things to all people and in so doing she is ceasing to be the church of Jesus Christ. If the trend continues, in time Rome will have her life-long dream fulfilled where “all” once again are under the supremacy of the papacy; in large part due to our modern ecumenists and their aiding and abetting mother Rome.
LikeLike
brother Michael,
You are correct in your assessment about the SBC, which brother Ken Silva tells us apparently means “Slowly Becoming Catholic”. Three years ago I wrote to the SBC executive board, rebuking them for putting apostates on the stage at a pastors’ seminar at that year’s convention. http://brogdensmuse.menofhonorministry.org/Apologetics/SBC_2006.htm
No response – but plenty of continued embrace of error.
The elders of my current church keep us in the SBC so they will have a better platform for presenting the biblical doctrines of grace and the case for family integrated churches.
LikeLike
Manfred,
The problem becomes more serious when we choose to bypass biblical principles for the sake of expediency or for any other purposes not ordained by Scripture. You mention that your elders keep your church in the SBC. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard something like this, not just in the SBC, but in the ABC, GARBC, and the Baptist Union in England.
Would it be wrong to assume that the world goes by and sees who we are affiliated with and makes the obvious connections? Our local churches are for the purpose of exhorting, encouraging, and admonishing believers within our midst. I have the freedom, being unaffiliated, to present the biblical doctrines of grace or family-integrated church or any host of other teachings with no fear of whether the SBC (or fill in the blank) likes it or not. I do not fear for losing my building. I don’t have to worry about being censured at the next convention meeting for taking a stand for others in the same denominational background.
When we get to the point where we can remain thinking that somehow good will come out of it, I do not believe that we are operating in any better fashion than some of the early reformers who kept one foot in Catholicism and the other foot trying to find a middle or conservative ground. It never works. The heresy and false teaching will eventually drag the others with them or they will be forced to leave. However, why be “forced” to leave error when the Bible clearly commands that we are to separate ourselves from such and not to associate with them. As pastors, our biggest concerns should be for the well-being of our flocks, not whether we have a better platform for our beliefs to those who are outside our walls.
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
DP,
I personally agree with you and don’t think, if I were an elder in my church, that I would support staying in the SBC. It is not – at this point – an issue worthy of contending, mainly because we do not have any SBC influence within our church.
LikeLike
I don’t see there ever being any kind of discipline of any of the MD signers. About anyone I have talked to on the subject believe Catholicism to be Christianity. They don’t know how evil its teachings are. If people were not so Biblicaly iliterate and had some backbone there might be some type of discipline but, seeing how most have neither Bible literacy or a backbone they see the MD as being ok.
James White has a couple of video clips from the John 3:16 conference. In one of the clips, one of the speakers equates the atonement with a decision by the Unites States Supreme Court. An absurd comment. Especially coming from a pastor.
It is that type of thinking, Biblical iliteracy, and lack of backbone that will keep any discipline ever being taken.
I guess that is just me looking at the glas as being half empty.
LikeLike
Coram Deo,
Thank you for your most gracious and informative response.
I am grateful for it.
Blessings,
– Matthew
LikeLike