Some Realism wrote:
The majority of people in our nations really don't care or understand theological doctrinal variations.

Some Realism,

It is very clear from what they have written that the authors of "the Manhattan Declaration" believe that Roman Catholics are Christians, and in order to maintain that idea, they must then assume that the gospel of the Roman Catholic Church is not such a great error as that it would separate those embracing it from that acceptance with God which is promised only to and hoped for by those who have trusted in Christ alone for salvation from their sin.

Therefore, I would like to ask you this question? Do you believe that those who embrace the Roman Catholic gospel are Christians?

We are not talking about "the majority of people in our nation," but Christians and their aligning themselves with apostate religionists contrary to God's precepts.

"It is then very evident and too plain to be missed, in those verses which I first quoted above, that the best thing which I can do personally to aid in the restoration of a society in decline is to "GET MY OWN HEART RIGHT WITH GOD." If this is not done, then, indeed, I am a part of the problem and cannot be a part of the solution."

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse [your] hands, [ye] sinners; and purify [your] hearts, [ye] double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and [your] joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." James 4:7-10

Here is the only real and lasting solution to the problem. The Lord says, "if my people..."

If there are those who are not included within that statement, they may be a part of the problem, but they are certainly not a part of the solution, nor can they be, if God's words mean anything. For, what can those do who oppose God in doctrine and practice to bring about God honoring results? No, evidently there is hypocrisy within the camp somewhere! For those who despise the ways of God can only pretend to honor and serve Him; therefore, there must be other intentions within their hearts than just those openly declared."

Some Realism wrote:
I am glad at least for your concurrence as to the cause being just.

"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. 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."

This statement is totally deceptive. The differences are far more than just "ecclesial."

That quote implies that these groups are all Christian, and the gospels which they each embrace are not diverse, but one and the same.

First of all we know that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't believe that; but her gospel is the only true one.

This is Just ECT repeated...

Some Realism wrote:
Dear me!

Apparently there are a lot of people obviously doubtful of their own faith to join in a simple declaration against moral decline in the community.

"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 s-e-x-u-a-l 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."

While I agree that the cause is just, the union is not, and the cause can never justify "that union which places a veil over the doctrinal differences" which remain between those diverse groups.

That's why He says they are fools:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7

June wrote:
Some Realism . . you might consider reading:

* A Rebuke of the Manhattan Declaration Signers Pastor Ralph Ovadal

http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=22887

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=1123091212334]]]Listen to "A Rebuke of the Manhattan Declaration Signers"[/URL]

Seems that Chuck Colsen had a part in the drafting of this document too, as he did "Catholics and Protestants Together." Perhaps this is just another attempt to get some who wouldn't sign that original document to join the ecumenical alliance another way.

It behooves those, in high positions within the true Church, who stand against any form of alliance with both Rome and those who also oppose the doctrines of Christ to declare their opposition to such ecumenical covenants and to indicate their reasons for doing so, as John MacArthur has done.

It is unfortunate, but most true that many are the followers of men, and if those leaders who are genuine followers of Christ are silent, men will follow the Pied Piper wherever he may lead...

Lurker wrote:
To even think that a Holy God would dwell in an unbeliever is beyond my ability to comprehend.

This was soon fulfilled: "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What [is] this [that] is come unto the son of Kish? [Is] Saul also among the prophets? And one of the same place answered and said, But who [is] their father? Therefore it became a proverb, [Is] Saul also among the prophets?" 1 Samuel 10:10-12

Was Saul a believer? How did he prophesy without the presence of God's Spirit? Now we know that the Spirit of God did not long remain with Saul.

Alan H wrote:
Is the Holy Spirit a distinct person from Christ within the Trinity or the same person?

Mike wrote:
If God and his Son are omnipresent, do you therefore believe they dwell within unbelievers?

John UK wrote:
Jesus was observed DEPARTING THIS WORLD for heaven. Angels informed the disciples that Jesus would RETURN in exactly the same manner.

Where is Jesus now? IN HEAVEN!

The little ditty "You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart" is okay for children, but hardly theological, is it?

Impossible!

Frenchie concerning Ephesians 3:17 also wrote:
17. That Christ may dwell. He explains what is meant by “the strength of the inner man.” As

“it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell,” (Colossians 1:19,)

so he who has Christ dwelling in him can want nothing. It is a mistake to imagine that the Spirit can be obtained without obtaining Christ; and it is equally foolish and absurd to dream that we can receive Christ without the Spirit. Both doctrines must be believed. We are partakers of the Holy Spirit, in proportion to the intercourse which we maintain with Christ; for the Spirit will be found nowhere but in Christ, on whom he is said, on that account, to have rested; for he himself says, by the prophet Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me.” (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18.) But neither can Christ be separated from his Spirit; for then he would be said to be dead, and to have lost all his power.

Justly, therefore, does Paul affirm that the persons who are endowed by God with spiritual vigor are those in whom Christ dwells. He points to that part in which Christ peculiarly dwells, in your hearts, — to show that it is not enough if the knowledge of Christ dwell on the tongue or flutter in the brain.

Satch Chikhlia wrote:
Just the musings of an amateur theologian, so please be kind to this old codger.

Is it not true that God (singular) is Spirit (singular). But that this God (singular) exists as three persons (plural). So if God as Spirit indwells someone, can we disassociate one person from the others in this indwelling?

Maybe this just muddies the water even further, in which case please ignore!

One final thought. We have to believe that there are many things which must remain mysteries. For instance we know that God is in every place at once; not a part here and a part there but in his entire being. And yet he is infinite so that space itself cannot contain him. If this is so, then can we argue in absolute terms that we were devoid of his presence before conversion? If so, how can God still be said to be omnipresent? If in his omnipresence he did reside in me before my conversion how am I to understand the indwelling that follows conversion?

Acts 17:28 "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

John UK wrote:
But obviously if I have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in me, then Christ dwells within me - by his Spirit.

But, Christ himself is at the right hand of the Majesty on high, from which position he will come again to judge the world. He does NOT return with all his holy angels from within ME!

John, I am afraid you are mistaken in one point. Yes, Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of God, but "that," in His humanity; however, His deity remains infinite and unbound by that physical body; even as, while He was upon earth, He could still say, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13).

Do not forget His omnipotence. His promised return will be physical...

Lurker wrote:
It was asserted that the eternal state of glory in the new heaven and earth comes after and for that reason the word "world" was best suited for this phrase as the KJV has it rather than "age" ...

Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end 4930 of the world 165; and the reapers are the angels.

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end 4930 of this world 165.

Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end 4930 of the world 165: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end 4930 of the world 165?

Lurker wrote:
Alan,
I considered a brief synopsis of our discussion but will settle for this.

"the end of the world" (Matt 28:20)

Is it the end of time and history with the eternal state of glory following or is it the end of an age with another temporal age following?

...it is my intent to take my ease once again seeing I have a few years on both of you young men.

May I enter a few observations about this particular phrase, while respecting your seniority, of course?

First, the Greek word "aion" translated "world" in this verse must "first" be kept in the immediate context of this verse to correctly understand what Jesus is saying here.

Secondly, the Greek word "aion" refers to "an unspecified period of time," and "that period of time" is defined within the context of this verse as, "unto the end of the world."

Thirdly, the context of the verse also suggests the reason for his presence, i.e, "they were to teach and preach," which would bring persecution; they could neither bear nor endure without his enabling presence. (See also vs 18)

Lastly, "this limited time period" does not invalidate any other time period mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.

This way of thinking is totally irrational!

Wouldn't it be natural to include those words as a part of the entire forgery; to make it seem more authentic? The more evidence and the more convincing that evidence, the more something seems believable. Even fakers do the best they can or they lose all their credibility.

That's like saying we can depend upon any bill of currency simply because it has the right persons face on it.

One thing proves this thing a hoax, and that one thing is something which the Roman Catholic church rejects, though it claims otherwise. That one thing is the Scripture.

"Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." John 20:6, 7

Isn't it interesting that the napkin which covered Jesus' face was set apart by itself. The Holy Spirit always has a way to disprove the inventions of men. Now if they found an imprinted napkin... No, perhaps not!

Frankly, God is not into this kind of stuff. He does not use that which appeals to the flesh to produce spiritual faith.

Alright, I hadn't wanted to enter into this discussion because I am having a hard time understanding what the point is each of you are trying to make.

It is my honest opinion that when there is contention in the heart of two persons debating, there are two things which generally result. Most people would claim only one problem exits, that being, that one side is unwilling to listen; but I am convinced, and these Sermon Audio threads have thoroughly persuaded me of this fact, that not only does that attitude cause the person listening to shut his ears (rather his understanding, or perhaps his willingness to understand), but it also affects the person speaking in such a manner as causes him to communicate in an unclear manner.

There is a wall, and both sides have erected it, not just the one, as may be supposed. Neither of you, if I may be so bold, are communicating, you are combatting.

Communication is the exchange of ideas, but there is no profit as long as those ideas are rejected. And often they are rejected because they explode upon impact.

Isn't this why we have so many one sided conversations on SA? It shouldn't be so, but it is!

I've got a confession to make. I didn't know what you meant by that term until I looked up the word in the dictionary. The only one that made any sense was number 8. Anyway, I guess that means I am not an American baseball fan either...

Lurker to John UK wrote:
Better think some more for you just whiffed.

"8. Baseball Slang. (of a batter) to strike out by swinging at and missing the pitch charged as the third strike."