Prominent Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration on the grounds, he now explains, that it assumes that the Catholic Church preaches the gospel.
Indeed, he explains, it was born of the same impulse that produced the various statements of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.
The first point that needs to be made is that the Manhattan Declaration had nothing to do with Evangelicals and Catholics Together: If nothing else, the declaration was produced and guided to completion entirely outside First Things‘ offices, while such projects as Evangelicals and Catholics Together remain at the center of the work the magazine exists to do.
And the second point that needs to made is that R.C. Sproul’s kind of refusal of any interaction with Catholics—his pharisaical keeping of his skirts oh-so clean—is proof of why Evangelicals and Catholics Together exists: Even when we disagree, it’s vital to make clear to one another why we disagree. But that is something R.C. Sproul, in his lonely purity, will never bother to find out.
December 10th, 2009 | 8:26 pm
First they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out because Catholics don’t preach the gospel.
Then they came for the Orthodox, and I did not speak out because the Orthodox don’t preach the gospel, at least not the way we do in the West.
Then they came for the Arminians, and I did not speak out because the Arminians don’t preach the gospel, at least not the way Calvin did.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
December 10th, 2009 | 9:04 pm
In defense of R. C. Sproul it should be said that he would probably be content with that situation (“no-one left to speak out for me”); preferring to put his trust in God rather than in human beings he considers (rightly or wrongly) to be enemies of the true gospel.
And of course he believes that he knows all about why we disagree, that’s been clear since the days of Luther and Calvin, no need to find out any more.
And frankly, every time the Roman Catholic Church re-iterates that Protestant churches are not churches but merely ecclesial communities and their clergy’s ordinations null and void (as Anglicanorum Coetibus once again made plain recently), it is water on the mills of those who maintain like R. C. Sproul that Rome is a false church preaching a false gospel.
I do not agree with his stance but it is not pharisaical but principled and logically consistent within itself.
December 10th, 2009 | 11:07 pm
“I do not agree with his stance but it is not pharisaical but principled and logically consistent within itself.”
Well, no one said pharisaical positions couldn’t be principled and logically consistent within themselves.
If you want evidence, examine the “Evangel” blog. In about every fifth topic or so, the writers there go into paroxysms trying to determine whether or not they should even be on this website, given that they know Catholics aren’t Christians and do not have the true Gospel.
Say that I want to become a “True” Christian; and not only a True, but a True of the Purist variety. Could someone like Sproul tell me which denomination is the best to join? Which is the most biblically based? Which is the most “True”? I’ll wait.
December 10th, 2009 | 11:12 pm
“preferring to put his trust in God”
For a guy who believes in predestination or whatever they call it these days, I would think that it is rather risky to assume that you are one of the elect an not “do” anything about it. They never consider that to be “pride”, the deadliest of the sins, or presumption, another deadly one.
I actually listen to the guy when he talks on biblical issues. He’s very knowledgeable and an incredibly good speaker.
I’m a Catholic who had the good fortune to grow up in the 50′s so I had a good education in the catechism and some basic theology from nuns and priests. But not much on the Bible.
So I’m trying to rectify that at this late date.
It’s good to cover all the bases.
December 10th, 2009 | 11:43 pm
Sad to see that some people would rather devote their efforts to rejecting other followers of Christ than to take a stand against immorality.
Sproul’s refusal to sign the Manhattan Declaration shows he finds Catholics to be more objectionable than the acts of abortion and homosexuality.
December 10th, 2009 | 11:45 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jeff Miller and Rogelio H., Chris Burgwald. Chris Burgwald said: RT @CurtJester: I guess R.C. Sproul was just predestined to be a jerk at times http://bit.ly/4MoEoq [...]
December 11th, 2009 | 12:41 am
The best kind of interaction with Catholics R.C. Sproul has is the kind that would present the Biblical claims of the true gospel of grace to the average Roman Catholics he surely comes across through his ministry.
December 11th, 2009 | 9:01 am
Joe, you should really read the comments on the MD posts. Some are perfectly willing to admit that the RCC and EO churches are non-Christian.
December 11th, 2009 | 9:51 am
If one wishes to understand the Calvinist mindset, a good place for the educated amateur to begin is with “Jonathan Edwards: A Life” by George A. Marsden. One can then proceed to the writings of Professor Perry Miller in order to gain more knowledge from a principled, academically-credentialed historian who was, I believe, either agnostic or an atheist. When the Bible is believed to be the only source of faith in Christ available to us -rather than as a divinely-inspired record of “man’s interactions with God” – and when the fact that by the Holy Spirit the church was invested with teaching authority is rejected, the actions taken by the scholar and believer C. D. Sproul become understandable. While believing he is not in possession of the fullness of truth, we can admire his faithful witness.
December 11th, 2009 | 10:06 am
I came out of the Reformed tradition only about 10 years ago and was a fan and supporter of Dr. Sproul. After I entered the Church, reflecting on some of his writings, I felt that he might not really be all that far behind me, especially considering his appreciation for St. Augustine and (even) St. Thomas. But, as Fr. Neuhaus styled it years ago, “the bottomless pit” of Calvinism has a fearsome hold on certain types of intellectuals. R.C. Sproul is a good, devoted Christian man. This is so sad.
December 11th, 2009 | 6:12 pm
Jason: “Sproul’s refusal to sign the Manhattan Declaration shows he finds Catholics to be more objectionable than the acts of abortion and homosexuality.”
I don’t think it’s fair to say that of RC Sproul.
But I have read other Christian leaders saying that.
December 11th, 2009 | 8:50 pm
RE: “In defense of R. C. Sproul it should be said that he would probably be content with that situation (”no-one left to speak out for me”); preferring to put his trust in God rather than in human beings he considers (rightly or wrongly) to be enemies of the true gospel.”
That’s missing the point. My post was a parody of Martin Niemoller’s famous poem in which he lamented not so much the fact that, in the end, no one was left to speak for him, but that he, by remaining silent when God would have him speak out, was being complicit in a most nefarious evil. I don’t wish to be as harsh toward the Evangelical Objectors as some of them have been toward the signers of the Manhattan Declaration, but it is difficult to see their attitude as anything other than the same kind of complicity.
December 12th, 2009 | 12:03 am
Ars Artium,
Those are wonderful sources that you recommend; Edwards truly was the greatest theological mind that America produced up till the late 20th century. Unfortunately, they will not really explain the biblicist and narrow-minded varieties of Calvinism that are all too prevalent today.
While Edwards (and many contemporary Reformed folks) are eager to see the beauty of the world as a reflection of the glory of God and to open their minds to the sheer plenitude of creation, too many have taken Calvinism as a rigid set of precepts by which one can determine who is doctrinally anathema.
Sadly, Sproul seems to be numbering himself among these with his objection to the Manhattan Declaration and his vociferous antagonism toward N. T. Wright. It’s one thing to disagree with fellow Christians; it’s another thing to deny that they believe and teach the Gospel at all.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:37 pm
The Declaration says, “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.” Have we all forgotten that there actually is a big distinction between a Roman Catholic gospel and a Reformed Protestant Gospel? There was a Reformation after all.
I’m just curious in light of some of the comments about RC if anyone sees that a Roman Catholic and a Reformed Protestant see that statement as problematic since both see the gospel so differently. Canon 9 of the Council of Trent anathemitizes anyone who believes in Sola Fide. In light of that fact, I dare to think that there could be unity between Protestants and Catholics in marching against the horror of abortion if the unifying factor was ethics and not gospel. When a statement is written about being unity over “gospel” then any self-respecting Roman Catholic or Protestant should protest in my opinion. But if we were to unite over the goal of eliminating abortion on ethical grounds, I would march with anyone, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant, Mormon, Orthodox alike.
December 12th, 2009 | 7:19 pm
Joseph Bottum: “Prominent Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration on the grounds, he now explains, that it assumes that the Catholic Church preaches the gospel.”
For that matter, so does First Things/Evangel blogger Frank Turk. He writes here:
“You know: RC Sproul has said what I have said about this document. And many people have received what he has said without all the cataclysm and apocalypse. But there are, of course, a contingent of people who cannot disagree without being hell-bent to make those who have disagreed with them (you know: not just in theory or in general, but in fact and specifically with what they have said) into the Devil himself because that’s the only way to get to the end-point where they are right, dammit: RIGHT!”
December 12th, 2009 | 8:48 pm
TUAD: This post is actually a case in point.
________________________________
Mr. Bottum –
It is simply unquestionable that the MD says this:
Can you explain to me how this statement is not a function of the initiatives of ECT?
Let me put this another way: It seems obvious to me that the objectives of ECT are not narrow-band. They are in fact “broadband”, intending to overcome the grass-roots level of interaction between Evangelicals and Catholics with a sense that there are no substantive difference between Catholics and confessional Protestants, but merely are technical and (as this document says) “ecclesiological” differences that can eventually be sorted out. The statement cited here assumes that all people with a sociological interest in their group’s relationship to the historic person of Jesus Christ are, without any qualification, “believers”.
Is that assumption not in some way anchored in the groundwork of ECT?
Thanks, btw, for your generosity in allowing the breadth of discussion on this topic that has occurred here at FT.
December 12th, 2009 | 8:50 pm
For others considering Mr. Bottum’s position and remarks, here are 19 questions for the signers of the Manhattan Declaration.
December 13th, 2009 | 10:20 am
“1. Is the Bible your sole, sufficient, ultimate source and authority for faith and practice?” Of course not. That false doctrine of men is both un-Christian and un-Biblical, plus un-historical and illogical too.
Bigotry and hatred excused by butchery of the Bible are really hard to overcome.
December 15th, 2009 | 12:05 pm
“R.C. Sproul’s kind of refusal of any interaction with Catholics—his pharisaical keeping of his skirts oh-so clean…”
“…R.C. Sproul, in his lonely purity…”
Wow, feel the anti-Calvinist hate here.
Makes me proud to claim the Reformation as my heritage.
I thought this blog/magazine (to which I’m a proud subscriber, by they way) was above this kind of snarkiness.
Anyway, if we’re going to debate the merits of signing a piece of paper, there are some good points made here worth considering:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/12/why-i-didnt-sign-the-manhattan-declaration.html
Thank goodness for the presence of Frank Turk, Russell Moore and others here who remind us that the Reformation actually did take place, and for a good reason.
December 18th, 2009 | 2:36 pm
[...] [1] http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/10/why-r-c-sproul-refused/. Both First Things speaker Bottum and anonymous write at the Manhattan Declaration organization site Officespeak fluently. “The Passive Voice is the bread and butter of press releases and official statements. A sentence in the passive voice does not have an active verb. Thus, no one can take the blame for ‘doing’ something, since nothing, grammatically speaking, has been done by anybody. The passive voice can be your best friend. Use it to get ouf jams, deflect blame, and thward responsibility.” For purposes of clarity accuracy sacrificed by dispensing with elllipsis points indicating intentional omissions. To examine the passage in full see D. W. Martin, Officespeak (New York: Simon Spotlight Entertainment, 2005), pp. 12-13. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact