Ligon Duncan on the Manhattan Declaration

Ligon Duncan has written an article for Reformation 21 on the Manhattan Declaration. I posted a link to Alister Begg's comments on the Manhattan Declaration a few days ago. I am in agreement with Begg and have not signed the document because I believe it would imply a common ground between Catholics and Protestants that does not exist. Ligon Duncan has signed the Declaration and has given a fair assessment of the differences between confessing evangelicals who have signed and those who have not signed. Duncan writes:

Those who did not sign the document believe that it is a lamentable example of the confused sort of ecumenical theology, on display in the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) statements, and that it implicitly commits its signers to acknowledge a commonality between evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox on the gospel, who is a true Christian and what is a true church. They rightly point out that the Alliance has always been and remains unanimously critical of the presuppositions and products of ECT.

Those who did sign the document believe that it is a statement of solidarity, not of ecumenism, and that it represents the kind of principled co-belligerency advocated by, for instance, Francis Schaeffer and James Boice. These signers believe that document actually helps clarify their concerns with the whole ECT project, because the Manhattan Declaration only asks evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox to agree on matters on which we actually agree (marriage and sexuality, the sanctity of life, and religious liberty), rather than purporting an agreement in vital matters on which we do not agree (the Gospel, what is a Christian, what is a true Church).

You can read the entire article here.