“Dangerous Influences Have [Definitely] Infiltrated the Evangelical Movement”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Recently I read an interesting and telling interview given by Phil Johnson at the *Exiled Preacher blog. I appreciated much of it. I’d like to share and comment on one statement from Brother Johnson. Near the conclusion of the interview he stated,

“The greatest problem I see is the ever-broadening boundary of the evangelical movement and (corresponding to that) the increasingly ambiguous definition of evangelicalism. Evangelicals are too concerned with gaining collective clout and publicity and not concerned enough with being evangelical (being faithful to the gospel). Many of evangelicalism’s most visible and popular leaders and institutions—including evangelicalism’s self-styled “house organ,” Christianity Today magazine—have been tearing down evangelical boundaries instead of guarding them. Consequently, a host of dangerous influences have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews don’t see the danger, because it’s considered impolite to be critical of a fellow ‘evangelical’.”

The portion in bold, in particular, is nearly a mirror image of what Peter Masters wrote in his article, The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness. Dr. Masters wrote,

“The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world…. A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book (Hansen’s) is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.”

I’m wondering when men like Phil Johnson and John MacArthur who “see the danger” are going to openly criticize and biblically resist the propagation of the charismatic sign gifts by their fellow T4G “conservative” evangelicals C. J. Mahaney and John Piper. Dr. MacArthur is going to share the platform at T4G (in April) with both of these men. Will MacArthur confront Piper and Mahaney over their “dangerous influences” or as Masters noted will he, “learn to accept every point of view” to be part of T4G?

Of course the danger of ecumenism has infiltrated the evangelical community and NT church with Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration. This is another of the “dangerous influences [that] have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews….”

John MacArthur, however, is this very week at his Shepherd’s Conference honoring Dr. Al Mohler by giving him a keynote speakers’ role. This is a strange honorarium for a man who is “tearing down the boundaries” and has become a conduit for the “dangerous influences [that] have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews…”

Finally, how many (Fundamentalist) pastors who claim allegiance to the God-given mandates for biblical separatism, that forbid fellowship or cooperation with “enemies of the cross of Christ” (2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:11; Phil. 3:18) or those disobedient brethren who give them Christian recognition will be attending T4G, Desiring God and/or Shepherd’s? Who among those who claim a heritage of biblical separatism are going to place themselves, and those under their oversight, at the feet of men (Mohler, Duncan, Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll, et. al.) who are bringing “dangerous influences” into the NT church?

We are discussing the propagation of Charismatic theology and/or ecumenical compromise. These are no mere, “matters of judgment” that some men might suggest. What these erring brethren believe and practice in these examples are “matters of fundamental doctrine.”

To fellowship with, to sit under the conference teaching/preaching ministry of men who have compromised the Gospel is a form of “pro-separatism” that is neither biblical nor part of any historic, balanced Fundamentalist heritage.


LM

*Exiled Preacher, Blogging in the Name of the Lord: Phil Johnson
(Thanks to Rachel, of the KnetKnight clan, for providing this link)

Editor’s Note:
After initial publication of this article I’ve expanded the quote from Phil’s interview to provide a fuller context.

Are We Recognizing the “New” New Evangelicalism?

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

I am developing another article in the series on the Manhattan Declaration (MD) and its ramifications for the New Testament church. With the Christmas holiday upon us I may reserve that article for publication just after the New Year holiday.

We have been discussing the ecumenical spirit of certain signatories from the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp. Some of the “conservative” evangelicals like Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan who signed the MD apparently did not intend, “to forge an ecumenical relationship which compromises the gospel by giving Christian recognition to people without a credible profession of the gospel. That wasn’t the intent, but it is the result.”1 I will continue on this theme in the next article.

In the meantime my reading and research has shown me that the current trend toward ecumenism by the likes of Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, et. al. is eerily similar to a previous generations slide toward New Evangelicalism. There may be some greater measure of restraint in this generation, but nevertheless there is tangible evidence of a slide toward New Evangelicalism.

If there is one book I would recommend to help contemporary Fundamentalists get a handle on the danger at their doorsteps it would be The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, 1994 by *Dr. Ernest D. Pickering. For their consideration I am going to share select excerpts from Pickering’s classic on the subject. The following excerpts come from Chapter Seven, Gray Hairs Are Here and There. Afterward I will close with some personal commentary.

From The Subtle Drift Toward the New Evangelicalism, p. 155.

The ancient prophet Hosea was concerned about gray hair also, but for a different reason. In a brokenhearted lament over his beloved nation, Israel, he wrote: “Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth it not” (Hos. 7:9). Gray hairs are a mark of aging, of deteriorating strength, and, in the spiritual sense employed by Hosea, of a loss of spiritual vitality. The saddest note in this lament was the fact that the nation did not realize it was losing its spiritual moorings.

All over America and the world at this hour there are churches that are drifting into New Evangelicalism without the remotest knowledge that they are doing so. They are being carried along with the shifting winds of compromise and have long since departed from the solid biblical position established by their predecessors. Young pastors, many without firm doctrinal underpinnings, have led their churches to believe that in order to reach the masses they must abandon the strict biblical principles of yore and embrace more fluid and attractive positions. They have changed, but they do not realize that they have changed.

Many contemporary fundamentalists are being wooed by the siren call of New Evangelicalism. It seems especially compelling to younger men (though not exclusively so). Born in a different generation and without personal involvement in the battles against the early forms of New Evangelicalism, some are impatient with the fray, do not see the relevance of the conflict, and are inclined to adopt the attitude “a plague on both your houses.” What is there about the New Evangelicalism that seems to attract some from within the fundamentalist camp?2

David Beale warned against those who bear the label fundamentalist but whose personal philosophy is essentially New Evangelical. “Unlike present-day Fundamentalists, they refuse to regard the militant defense of the faith and the full doctrine and practice of holiness as intrinsically fundamental.”3 In other words, there are fundamentalists who are either becoming or already are New Evangelicals. Some are actually adopting New Evangelical philosophies while still proclaiming that they are not New Evangelicals. The basic problem is this: Many fundamentalists, when speaking of the New Evangelicalism, are referring to the original positions and writings of the early founders of New Evangelicalism such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga. They repudiate heartily the thoughts of these earlier leaders, but either in ignorance or willingly they fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. It is always safer to berate the teachings of those historically farther removed than of those who are currently afflicting the church.

The first step toward New Evangelicalism is refusing to live in fidelity to the Scriptural mandates that call for separation when it is clearly warranted. Unfortunately some men in Fundamentalism, who presently identify with biblical separatism, appear to be “either in ignorance or willingly” greasing their own skids and may not be too far behind the direction of men like Dr. Mohler. The trend of some Fundamentalists toward the “conservative” evangelicals appears to be how can I keep my fellowship with them instead of what does the Bible mandate for me.

I am hearing of pastors and Bible college leaders who have begun laying out in stark terms to their congregations and student bodies the dangers of ecumenical compromise, and are referencing both the MD and its signatories as a prime example of it. I am grateful for men who have marked certain signatories to the Manhattan Declaration. When we speak of to “mark” we must, however, speak of it in terms of mark AND “avoid” (Rom. 16:17).

“Paul admonishes believers to ‘avoid’ those whom we have marked. The form of this verb indicates that it is a present imperative, which indicates that this avoidance is neither a suggestion nor advice, but, in fact, a command. We are commanded by God to continually avoid the person who has been marked!”4

Unless men determine to set the right example (Phil. 3:17) putting fidelity to Scripture ahead of tolerating doctrinal aberrations and methods of ministry among the conservative evangelicals that they (fundamentalists) would never tolerate in their own ministries they will inch their way closer to New Evangelicalism. With each step of tolerance for and compromise with the disconcerting actions of evangelicals the mature Fundamentalists are showing the younger generation, under their influence, the way there.


LM

1) Dr. Dave Doran, A Bronx Declaration, Dec. 2009.

2) Pickering goes into detail as he answers that question under the subheadings of: A Lessening of Tensions; A Wider Working Relationship; A Greater Attractiveness to the Masses; The Perception The New Evangelicals are More Loving; etc.

3) In Pursuit of Purity, pp. 261-ff.

4) In Defense of the Gospel, p. 212.

*Dr. Ernest D. Pickering (1928-2000) “was a fundamentalist pastor, author, college administrator, and mission board representative…. Pickering criticized the ecumenical neo-evangelism of Billy Graham in print as early as 1957, and his chief contribution to twentieth-century evangelical Christianity was as a Baptist theoretician of separatist fundamentalism.” I recommend three more works by Dr. Pickering that may be helpful to those who are concerned over modern day compromise with evangelicalism. They are:

Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church

Holding Hands With the Pope: The Current Evangelical Ecumenical Craze

Are Fundamentalists Legalists?

Previous Articles in this Series Include:
Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for (Dave Doran’s) “Gospel-Driven Separation?”

Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration, Part 2: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

Al Mohler Signs TMD, Part 3: Tolerance & Compromise Will, In Its Wake, Leave Casualties

ADDENDUM:Through 12/14 I had been participating in a discussion on the MD at another blog. Within that interaction two persons there have discussed with me various articles/comments I have made about Dr. Dave Doran’s Gospel-Driven Separation series; the “biblical obligations” he has defined in particular. Each of these men asked me a companion question. These were reasonable questions to which I gave a careful response.

Those questions and answers, however, do not fit the subject matter of this particular article. Therefore, I have located those questions and my response to the thread location of Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-Driven Separation?”

From Gradually Sliding into New Evangelicalism, p. 159.

From The Appeal of New Evangelicalism to the Fundamentalist, p. 156.

Al Mohler Signs TMD, Part 3: Tolerance & Compromise Will, in Its Wake, Leave Casualties

“In recent years Roman Catholics and evangelicals have made common cause in the political arena, uniting forces in struggles over the abortion issue, homosexuality, etc. These joint efforts have brought together leaders from both sides who had never worked together previously. Personal friendships have been formed, and, as a result, serious doctrinal differences have begun to be down-played. Since there is agreement on some social issues, and since these issues are so important in the life of America today, many leaders on both sides are willing to minimize doctrinal conflicts on the plea that we need to cooperate in ‘saving America’.”1

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

The previous two articles in this on-going series dealt with The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) and in particular SBTS president Dr. Al Mohler having affixed his name as an original signatory. The series began with, Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-Driven Separation?” I included this comment,

With Mohler being counted among the star personalities of the so called conservative evangelicals, whom Reformed Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) men have been eager to formalize fellowship with, his signing TMD must surely be problematic. Mohler’s signing The Manhattan Declaration to essentially hold hands with the Roman Catholic Church for social justice irrefutably “compromise(s) the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith.”2

I followed the first article with an expose on the historic pattern of Al Mohler moving in the direction of the ecumenical mindset in Al Mohler Signs TMD: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism? From that article I documented that,

“Al Mohler endorsed, promoted and served as crusade chairman for the last half century’s high priest of ecumenical evangelism, the Rev. Billy Graham. Ecumenical evangelism may not be Mohler’s personal practice, but through his chairmanship of the crusade he did at the very minimum lend tacit support for and endorsement of Graham’s ecumenical evangelism.”

Commentary from both sides of the debate on TMD has continued at various Christian blogs. I have read many of them and left personal comments at a few. Yesterday, I left a comment at one blog under an article titled, R. C. Sproul Chimes in on the Manhattan Declaration. In the discussion thread I enjoyed a helpful discussion with another gentleman.

Earlier this week I was not particularly motivated to contribute any new articles toward the on-going controversy, but overnight I became motivated once more. For the balance of this article I am going to revise and significantly expand upon the comment I left under the blog article I referenced above.

In The Manhattan Declaration: Why Didn’t You Sign IT, RC; Sproul wrote,

“Without question, biblical truth must be proclaimed and the gospel preached prophetically to our nation. But how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted. More than that, this new document practically assumes the victory of ECT in using the term ‘the gospel’ in reference to that which Roman Catholics are said to ‘proclaim’ (Phil. 1:27).”3 (bold added)

I appreciate that excerpt from Sproul. He is correct in stating that TMD by virtue of its ecumenical nature “confuses the gospel” and that is a very serious matter. It has been my opinion that the Manhattan Declaration is a thinly veiled first cousin of Evangelicals & Catholics Together (E&CT). TMD was crafted to in part revitalize the raw ecumenism of E&CT under more subtle terms.

The Manhattan Declaration is a Trojan horse for full-blown ecumenism.

No man who believes in the biblical mandates for separation from denominations that propagate a false gospel, such as the Roman Catholic Church, should have signed on to TMD. Sproul followed his prior statement above with this commentary toward the men who did sign the TMD.

“I think my friends were misled and that they made a mistake, and I want to carefully assert that I have spoken with some of them personally about their error and have expressed my hope that they will remove their signatures from this document. Nevertheless, I remain in fellowship with them at this time and believe they are men of integrity who affirm the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.”4

Men should obey the biblical mandates to “admonish” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) brethren who did sign on to the TMD, which Sproul did. I am grateful for a few others who have. If TMD signers like Al Mohler refuse correction then believers have one option if they are going to obey the Scriptures, “withdraw” from him (them). Clearly Mohler, J. I. Packer, J. Ligon Duncan, et. al. will not “remove their signatures from this document.” Sproul is unwilling to make the necessary application of the biblical mandates that are irrefutably warranted. In his series on Gospel-Driven Separation Dr. Dave Doran wrote,

“For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17 ; Phil 3:17-19 ; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15 )… We cannot extend Christian fellowship to those who deny fundamental doctrines of the Faith. We cannot ignore the disobedience of those who do so. We cannot blur the line between the church and the world.”5

There are men in Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) circles who publicly affirm their fidelity to the biblical principles of Gospel-Driven Separation, including from brethren (2 Thess. 3:6-15; Rom 16:17). Like Sproul, however, they will tolerate a pattern of disconcerting actions of men like Mohler for the sake of fellowship with them.

Where does the Christian’s FIRST LOYALTY belong; to the Word of God or to his friends and their fellowships?

The direction and object of that loyalty is becoming increasingly muddled in this present day.

One can only imagine the outcry from IFB men who profess fidelity to biblical separatism if a Fundamentalist college president had signed the Manhattan Declaration, accepted the Charismatic sign-gifts as active for the church today or served in an official capacity for a Billy Graham crusade. We are witnessing a consistent pattern among some of our Reformed IFB men to tolerate, give benefit of the doubt and/or excuse things in the ministries of the “conservative” evangelicals that they (IFB men) would never allow for, tolerate or excuse in their own ministry or in a fellow IFB’s ministry.

I appreciate a clear stand for a balanced biblical separatism, which is a hallmark of Fundamentalism. The problem, however, is that when circumstances warrant, such as the signing of TMD, some men are highly reluctant to openly “admonish” and/or will not “withdraw” from the evangelicals who do these things.

Reformed IFB men have been and will in greater numbers continue attending the evangelical sponsored conferences. They will happily sit under the preaching/teaching ministries of Al Mohler, John Piper and C. J. Mahaney. IMO the glue that holds that desire for fellowship together, in spite of the obvious reasons to avoid certain conservative evangelicals, is their “mutual affinity for Calvinism.”6 They want the fellowship around Calvinism and will tolerate the obvious problems among the conservative evangelical Calvinists to have that fellowship.

There has been a steady increase of interest among Reformed IFB men with the evangelicals such as Mark Dever, Al Mohler, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, C. J. Mahaney, John MacArthur, et. al. Men in IFB circles have disagreed over Calvinism yet have shared fellowship in most cases. I cannot, however, recall a time when our separatist IFB brethren have been so willing to embrace evangelicals who demonstrate such obvious compromise.

The growing contemporary convergence of fundamentalists with evangelicals is a powerful force right now. Regrettably, it is growing into a force that is beginning to cause compromises that will eventually leave many without anchor, discernment or purity. This compromise will, in its wake, leave casualties.7

LM

Please continue to the attached discussion thread for additional commentary.

Addendum: With every step of compromise then next step becomes easier. See- Your First Step Won’t Be Your Last

1) Dr. Ernest Pickering: Holding Hands with the Pope: The Current Ecumenical Evangelical Craze This excerpt, which was in response to Chuck Colson’s Evangelicals and Catholics Together (E&CT), is just as applicable to The Manhattan Declaration as it was in 1994 to E&CT.

2) Dr. Dave Doran: Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1 from his Gospel-Driven Separation series.

3) The Manhattan Declaration: Why Didn’t You Sign It, RC?

4) Ibid.

5) Dr. Dave Doran: Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1.

6) While this may not be a universal sentiment it is wide spread and has been confirmed to me personally by men who are among those in that movement toward conservative evangelicalism.

7) Revised content from personal e-mail correspondence.

Please continue in this series with: Are We Recognizing the “New” New Evangelicalism?

Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-Driven Separation?”

“In recent years Roman Catholics and evangelicals have made common cause in the political arena, uniting forces in struggles over the abortion issue, homosexuality, etc. These joint efforts have brought together leaders from both sides who had never worked together previously. Personal friendships have been formed, and, as a result, serious doctrinal differences have begun to be down-played. Since there is agreement on some social issues, and since these issues are so important in the life of America today, many leaders on both sides are willing to minimize doctrinal conflicts on the plea that we need to cooperate in ‘saving America’.”

Today I had scheduled publication of a new article that continued the discussion of whether or not Lordship Salvation has any “Crossless” elements in its evangelistic message. We'll resume that series at a later date. The recent revelation of *Rev. R. Albert Mohler signing The Manhattan Declaration and its disturbing implications for the Gospel takes precedence.

This event is significant on several levels, first and foremost for the cause of Christ. Second this development is significant for the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) community, the Reformed IFB faction in particular. Mohler’s controversial action is concurrent with and highly relevant to Dr. Dave Doran’s on-going blog series on what he believes are the “biblical obligations regarding separation” for every believer. “Obligations” for what Doran has defined as, “Gospel-Driven Separation.”

Upon reading the opening quote to this article you might have thought it was published in the last week and it was in regard to The Manhattan Declaration. You would be wrong. It was written by Dr. Ernest Pickering and appears in, Holding Hands with the Pope: The Current Evangelical Ecumenical Craze, which was published nearly 16 years ago. You would, however, also have been right. Dr. Pickering’s commentary is as applicable today as it was in 1994. The “Evangelical Ecumenical Craze” then was over **Evangelicals and Catholics Together; today the application fits just as perfectly to The Manhattan Declaration.

What is The Manhattan Declaration?

The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) has been defined by its chief architect Chuck Colson as,

“a wake-up call—a call to conscience—for the church…a crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault.”

Al Mohler is among the original signatories of TMD, which was released to the public at the National Press Club on Friday, Nov. 20th. From his personal site under Why I Signed The Manhattan Declaration. Mohler offers a lengthy explanation for why he signed the document.

Signatories to The Manhattan Declaration include evangelical leaders, as well as leaders from the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. In addition to Mohler other notable evangelical signatories include: Dr. Mark L. Bailey- President, Dallas Theological Seminary; Dr. J. Ligon Duncan- Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church; Rev. Jonathan Falwell- Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church; Dr. Wayne Grudem- Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary; Dr. J. I. Packer- Board of Governors, Professor of Theology, Regent College; Dr. Joseph Stowell- President, Cornerstone University; Dr. John Woodbridge- Research professor of Church History & the History of Christian Thought, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Dr. Michael Easley- President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute; and many more. These added their names alongside a host of Roman Catholic signatories.

Signing on to TMD in fact has these men, including Mohler, Packer and Duncan holding hands with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). This action is a betrayal of the Scriptures that forbid ANY such an unholy alliance (2 Cor. 6:14-17). Joining hands with the RCC does not honor the Lord or His Word. For sake of unity in defense of vital social issues of the day Mohler signed TMD. With that he has embarked on the slippery slope of compromise with the RCC. The Bible says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers...” That is a mandate from the Lord God and it is not open to selective interpretation or application.

Just where does Mohler’s first loyalty lie; to God and His Word or

to a well-intended social agenda?

Well known evangelical Dr. John MacArthur expressed public opposition to TMD and by inference frustration with, “a few men whom (he) loves and respects (who) have already affixed their names to it.” You can read his extended commentary at The Shepherd’s Fellowship blog. This is one of those times I can appreciate John MacArthur for taking a stand on the right issue to take a public stand over. I posted several comments there on this issue and in those comments I referenced…

Dave Doran’s: “Gospel-Driven Separation”

At his Glory & Grace blog Independent Fundamental pastor Dr. Dave Doran has been posting a series addressing The Gospel and Separation. One of the latest installments in his series is highly relevant to Mohler joining the Roman Catholic signatories to TMD. I draw your attention to Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1 (Nov. 23, 2009) Pay particular attention to the bolded sections.

My goal through these posts on gospel-driven separation has been to lay out what I believe are the biblical obligations regarding separation that are explicitly stated in or implied by clear biblical texts. I’ve tried to summarize these obligations with the following three statements:

1) For the sake of the purity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who deny essential doctrines of the faith (Jude 3; 2 John 9-11; Rom 16:17).

2) For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

3) For the sake of the credibility of the gospel, believers and churches must strive to reflect God’s holiness and to live differently than those who have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:15-16; Eph 4:17-19).

Dr. Doran followed his three obligations above with this powerful statement, which IMO could not be improved upon or more clear in its meaning,

“It is important to note the difference between what I am calling obligations and other decisions regarding the extent of our ministerial cooperation and fellowship. My understanding of these obligations is that they are necessary for our church’s obedience to Jesus Christ—we don’t have any other option if we desire to be obedient to our Lord. We cannot extend Christian fellowship to those who deny fundamental doctrines of the Faith. We cannot ignore the disobedience of those who do so. We cannot blur the line between the church and the world.”

As Dr. MacArthur noted from The Shepherd’s Fellowship- The Manhattan Declaration itself (and furthermore with Mohler adding his signature) essentially:

1) “obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message…”
2) “tacitly relegate(s) the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue”
3) “constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels”

All of which makes a perfect test case for a clear and determined application of Dave Doran’s 2nd of three Scripture based mandates for Gospel-Driven Separation toward those, “who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith.”

With Mohler being counted among the star personalities of the so called “conservative” evangelicals, whom Reformed IFB men have been eager to formalize fellowship with, his signing TMD must surely be problematic. Mohler’s signing The Manhattan Declaration to essentially hold hands with the Roman Catholic Church for social justice irrefutably “compromise(s) the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith.” The only question is whether or not Doran himself would follow through on his own defined “biblical obligations” toward exactly what Mohler has done.

Will Dr. Doran make the application of his own counsel on Gospel-Driven Separation? Does he “admonish” (2 Thess. 3:15) Mohler. If Mohler refuses correction would Doran “mark” him and warn men to “avoid” him (Rom. 16:17)? Or would Mohler’s action be given a pass and the “biblical obligations” ignored for the sake of fostering fellowship around the “contemporary fundamentalist-evangelical spectrum?”

In the next installment we will see that Dave Doran has answered these questions. In the next installment we will, furthermore, review the history of Al Mohler in regard to similar questionable decisions. Signing TMD is not his first.


LM

Please continue to the next installment, Al Mohler Signs TMD: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

*Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention.

**A group of Roman Catholics and Evangelical joined together in 1992 to seek unity between their two groups. They decided this step as “essential for continued missionary expansion into the third millennium.” They viewed past conflicts as crippling the progress of the Gospel. “Involving, as it did, both evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders, it was truly a monumental statement...it was an ecumenical document of supreme importance since it represented a combined effort by leading spokesmen to ‘bury the hatchet’...and work together as ‘teammates’ instead of antagonists...It laments the division between them and proposes a moratorium on Catholic / evangelical conflict.” (E. Pickering: Holding Hands with the Pope) Mohler has embarked on the slippery slope toward compromise with the RCC for sake of unity in opposition to social issues of the day.