Mohler's Response to "An Evangelical Manifesto"
7 comments | Permalink
Al Mohler has a lengthy, thoughtful response to the Evangelical Manifesto. Read the whole thing; here's the conclusion:
In the end, I must judge "An Evangelical Manifesto" to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology. I admire so much of what this document states and represents, but I cannot accept it as a whole. I want it to be even more theological, and to be far more specific about the Gospel, I agree with the framers that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, rather than politically, culturally, or socially. This document will have to be much more theological for it to accomplish its own stated purpose.
posted by JT at Monday, May 12, 2008
7 Comments:
I agree with Dr. Mohler that there is much, much to like about the Manifesto. In fact, I realize that there can never be a perfect Manifesto which will please everyone. It's literally impossible. And it's unreasonable for anyone to expect one. Consequently, this is a very laudable effort.
Given the goal of civility, I hope the drafters and signer-endorsers of "An Evangelical Manifesto" are civil towards the many Evangelicals who don't sign and endorse it. Because as Dr. Mohler points out, there are a number of shortcomings and limitations in it as well.
If anyone's interested, here's my civil interchange with Professor Darrel Bock on his blog about the Manifesto. It's under "Cultural War?".
Here: Bock's blog post
tuad - thanks for the link. i'll certainly read it.
i didn't expect mohler to sign it. the paradigm within which he processes thoughts would almost always say, "not fully biblical."
which means, "not fully biblical, at least the way i and others, after thousands of years of people coming to differing opinions and conclusions, have finally decided what is biblical."
all that's left is for someone to say, "we cannot stand with the evangelical manifesto because we stand on the word of God."
ergo, the very reason the document had to be written in the first place.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
I have to wonder if Mohler is being completely honest in his reasons for not signing. He has invested so much time and energy into political and social activism, I would think he might be significantly challenged by a document of this sort.
What I found most mind-boggling about Mohler’s response was his proposal that inclusivists should not be deemed evangelical. Given that inclusivism is the most coherent position within a synergist soteriology, as numerous Arminians have attested, does Mohler want to make Calvinism a criterion for evangelicalism? Yet even there, we have an inclusivist line going back to Zwingli. Once John Wesley, Billy Graham and countless others have been dubbed non-evangelical because they denied gospel exclusivism defining “evangelical” is going to become pretty tough.
For those interested I have also engaged Professor Dan Wallace regarding "An Evangelical Manifesto".
Evangelical Manifesto Part 2
Why get involved with unrepentant ECT signatories like Guinness?
Why get involved with unrepentant ECT signatories like Guinness?
exactly.
i mean, that Sermon on the Mount and the "blessed are the peacemakers" stuff was just a bunch of 1st century sound bites...
and Galatians 3 is nothing but half of a baseball score...
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home