So far, so good. 2K is potentially responsible for Protestant conversions to Rome, but not for this week’s Supreme Court decisions. Rabbi Bret and the Baylys have yet to charge 2K with the logic behind the Court’s rulings on immigration or Obamacare.
In fact — mirabile dictu — the Baylys themselves resort to 2k argumentation to explain why their blogging about politics is not the same as teaching God’s word:
One other matter: someone commented saying I should not waste or abuse my pastoral authority by writing about this Supreme Court ruling because it’s not a matter of the Gospel nor something all Christians living under Scripture must agree on. True. I never said or implied otherwise. There are many things on this blog that are a matter of faithfulness to Scripture. This SCOTUS decision is a political matter and the authority I cited was the U.S. Constitution. So if you disagree with me on this and think Chief Justice Roberts is not craven, but brilliant, God bless you. I hope all Baylyblog readers realize that there are many posts that are not sermons or Biblical exhortations, but thoughts “out of our minds.”
If this is not an instance of 2k, it is at least an argument for current health insurance arrangements because clearly the Baylys are back on their meds.
Old Life 
Yes Darryl, but isn’t the basic point that all Christians – despite posturing to the contrary – have to operate in the world assuming some form of 2k? And isn’t what we’re really dealing with in anti-2k thinking, is folks who are just pietistic Christians who don’t like hearing that a mild form of 2k observence is how they’re actually living in the common kingdom? It seems to me anti-2k folks are simply riding the evangelical pony that demands they try to find every conceivable way to be “real Christians” that any commoness-or sameness-with the secular world has them with jitters. True or false?
LikeLike
Brethern and Sistern :), I STILL say of the deep, sometimes feisty OLT articles, and in one case, 200+ comments, are answered by sound implications of our Lord Jesus’ 2 great commandments! Church and State are BOTH/ANDS, with Church a major! And I STILL don’t see why any true Christian would refuse to sign http://www.manhattandeclaration.org. I it is good enough for folks like Peter A. Lillback, Charles Colson, Ravi Zacharias, J.I. Packer and 1000s of other great Christians, it is good enough for Old Bob, here!
LikeLike
Bob, the Manhattan Declaration makes the stands it does in the name of the gospel. It also includes Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox signers. Last I checked, Rome, Moscow, and Geneva don’t agree on the gospel.
LikeLike
There are glimmers of sanity here, but real health might lead to taking down A Sermon to the President. I know, Dr. Marvin, baby steps.
LikeLike
Which Moscow you talkin’ ’bout, Willis…er, Darryl?
LikeLike
Darryl, you’re just plain wrong. If anyone believes the apostolic creed in true faith, (which is a gift from God lest anyone of us should boast) then they are saved. That’s the Gospel! Douglas Wilson believes that, and so does anyone who believes the Bible! Shriek! Even Roman Catholics? Ahh yea, they came up with the Apostolic Creed!
How one understands the formulations or catechisms is another matter. The good news, or gospel, is not how one understands justification by faith, (while important) but that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and anyone who embraces him in true faith, repents of their sins, and rests in his completed work, and perseveres to the end, will be saved, regardless of denomination. Even an Arminianist knows that much! Really Darryl, I’d prefer a zealous charismatic, to a dry wooden formula man like you.
LikeLike
Doug, you should find out what health plan the Baylys have.
LikeLike
Sorry Darryl, but that just went over my head. What does that mean?
LikeLike
Doug, the piece does have a medical reference (and image). I thought you were the smartest guy in the room.
LikeLike
Darryl, You say that The Manhattan Declaration claims that its 3 statements are in the name of the gospel? What are you saying? I was taught, WTS, 1950-1954, and before, that the gospel was THE good news from our Creator to us. I think it is great news that the points in the MD are (1) human life is sacred because in God’s Image (2) marriage is 1 Adam, 1 Eve, and praised by God, Jesus and Paul, and (3) that I, as a prof. in a state university, have the freedom to say that I believe in the Creation of our Universe. Is the news that God will accept us into His heaven the ONLY good news, or just the BEST good news? Signing the MD, along with Lillback, Zacharias, Colson and Packer, puts me in great company, I think! BTW. I don’t think that any of these Brothers would join in the scuffles with other Brothers— like we see sometimes @ Old Life! Like the most recent—who is the smartest guy in the room? Great Scott!!! Love in Jesus, Old Bob
LikeLike
Bob, from MD’s Declaration:
Notice that the we here includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Notice (at the bottom) that they describe their duty as one of proclaiming the gospel. Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants don’t agree on the gospel. They do agree on creation and providence and might have found other ways for a declaration. But the gospel? Whoever signed this was unwise and does not qualify as “good company.”
LikeLike
Doug Sowers wrote:
“How one understands the formulations or catechisms is another matter. The good news, or gospel, is not how one understands justification by faith, (while important) but that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and anyone who embraces him in true faith, repents of their sins, and rests in his completed work, and perseveres to the end, will be saved, regardless of denomination. Even an Arminianist knows that much! Really Darryl, I’d prefer a zealous charismatic, to a dry wooden formula man like you.”
Doug, it is one thing for a professing Christian to have a somewhat fuzzy or imprecise formulation of justification. I think we are agreed that one may possess a true justifying faith while at the same time having some imprecise notions with respect to one’s formulation of justification. (For example, I think of the covenant child who trusts Jesus alone as his Savior with a simple, child-like faith but who has not yet memorized and/or fully grasped the implications of the answer to Shorter Catechism # 33.) But it is quite another thing to outright deny sola fide in favor of a faith plus works scheme of justification, and then to officially anathematize those who preach biblical sola fide (as Rome did in its pseudo-ecumenical Council of Trent and as is evidenced in Eastern Orthodoxy’s “Confession of Dositheus”). With apostolic authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul himself anathematized the Judaizers, who (like Romanism and Orthodoxism) taught a synergistic faith-plus-law-works scheme of justification, and regarded them as “false brethren” (i.e., outside the fold of Christ, pseudo-Christians) (see Gal. 1:9-10); and in his Epistle to the Romans (which presents us with a clear summary of the biblical apostolic gospel) Paul includes as part of the essence of that gospel which is the power of God unto salvation the fundamental gospel truth of justification by faith alone (Rom. 1:16-17). So to try to disconnect justification by faith alone from the gospel (as you do in your comments above) is false and unbiblical.
LikeLike
Thanks Brother Darryl for all that Manhattan Declaration background. I simply say that if one agrees with those 3 great points— Life, Marriage, and Freedom— Then he signs like the 4 great Christian Brothers I listed and 1000s of others (maybe not all heaven bound). If one disagrees with any of these, he doesn’t sign. Why does it matter what ELSE I and other signers think? It bothers me that Marx, Hitler, 9/11 type lslamics and probably Obama would not sign. If you don’t want to think like Romanists, etc. on many issues, OK, BUT do you want to be a bit like the rogues I mentioned? Love, Bob Morris
LikeLike
Bob, I’d have thought a WTS grad would be a little more watchful about the way that people use the word “gospel.” I agree with much of the Declaration on Life, Marriage and Freedom. I don’t agree with their baptizing these moral and political concerns with the gospel. I’m disappointed that you approve of their baptism.
LikeLike
Advice to my young Brother, Darryl:— I am about 30 years further down life’s road than he. We have 3 sons, like Darryl, in their 50s. All doing God’s work. They have a total of 16 youngins, ages 7-35. Very happily married for 87 years in all. I say, “Darryl, stop writing that torrent (yours and 426 comments on R, I,& P. Wow!) of controversial, at times trivial, words. Spend that saved time fighting the much needed, good fight against God’s enemies in His church. AND in His-our world. Spend more time trying to love your dear wife as Jesus loved His Bride, His Church! Ephesians 5:25. Yes, I still love you— tough love! Old Bob Morris
LikeLike
I enjoyed this post, Mr. Hart. I will admit that some may not like quite as thick a layer of sarcasm, but I think that is a matter of taste. I don’t mind it. I am in agreement with you that the Manhattan Declaration ought not to be signed by any Christian due to its wording. It is especially shocking that someone of the Reformed tradition would be okay with that final language of the declaration. As has always been the case, there is much danger in equating the fruits that flow from a faithful acceptance of the Gospel with the Gospel itself.
The Manhattan Declaration does exactly that. It is true that the declaration affirms many good works that any Christian would agree are good. As you noted, the problem is that it does not merely affirm the good works as good works, but rather it equates the affirmation of those good works as being faithful to the Gospel.
One might conceivably argue that there is a sort of relativity in that the Protestants who sign believe properly and take their worldview into the declaration while the Roman Catholics and others own their problems separately, thus it is not unwise to sign. However, I do not agree with that idea because the nature of the document implies that the signers are in agreement. I would ask Mr. Morris to consider the fact that the most important fruit of the Gospel by which we judge one’s faith is the confessor’s confession of who Christ is and what He has done on our behalf. I do not care if the declaration has the most prestigious of Christian leadership as signatories; it is a public twisting of the Gospel that undermines a true witness to Christ’s work on behalf of those who are found in Him. Even the prestigious can and do err.
Roman Catholics do not have a faithful confession. It is the confession of Christ that is the central fruit of the redeemed by which the church measures one’s faithfulness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, what is more, it is a work, like all Christian good works, that has been preordained for God’s elect to walk in (Ephesians 2:10). Seeing as how there is a lack of language in the Affirmation with regard to this central fruit of the Gospel, the language is dangerous that 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. May God help us not to fail in that duty.” The gospel of this affirmation is not proclaimed in fullness and is thus another gospel, which is no Gospel.
LikeLike
Thanks, Luke. Good to hear from you.
LikeLike