[centofanti]

Originally Posted by Aaron Adams

I think it would be fair to say that I'm politically far more conservative than Isaac and probably more conservative on some theological issues than he, but overall, he and I see eye-to-eye on this issue with a few minor differences.

The question was asked: How far is too far? This is a question that has been asked in my parish many times over the last several months. The liberal bishops planned this as an ideological hostile takeover, and they have been naive about how the dissenters will respond. If we abandon the ECUSA to its liberal doom, where will the Anglican Communion stand? Has God called us to jump ship, or to be actors of reformation in every way that we can? Luther's estrangement from the Roman Church was not of his own volition; it was his fervent desire to reform that Church and preserve unity. But, at some point, we must decide whether it is God's design that we continue in our efforts here, or on the outside. The question, "How far is too far?" is a poser. How can I say, "Exactly here," when God has not done the same in His Word? It's not a cut-and-dry case of, "They consecrated a gay bishop in a diocese that has no authority here; I have to leave the ECUSA." I will not leave as long as there is hope for reformation and the Anglican Communion behind us. If they sever ties with the ECUSA, I am sure that my parish will do the same.

In the meantime, I don't think the time has come to jump ship. Renounce the actions of the ECUSA, but do not give up on it yet.

Luther, RIP, caused so much confusion for Christians. the likes of which we are talking about now.

The faithful are confused and more tellingly the leaders (bishops). There is no unity or central authority, to have the truth spoken plainly, explained and with certainty for all faithful. people want the truth. they need it for their souls.

Not cut and dry? the leader/pastor of a diocese breaks 2 commandments and it's not cut and dry?

[Mathaytace ><>]

If the reaction of most of the African, Latin American, Australian, and most of The English Church is to be considered an indicator of things to come, schism is imminent.

Also, reformation has been attempted, not only recently but throughout History, (see my avatar). I wonder if the Bishops are listening to the cries of the faithful?

I mean no offense to you my Brothers in the One Christ.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by centofanti

What do you think a faithful ecusa should do to its leader/pastor like a bishop robinson?

Bishop Robinson should never have been consecrated, elected, or allowed to actively be in Orders to begin with. Then we wouldn't have this problem.

what does the faithful think about the Community of faith as you put the 'church.'

I think they rightly consider ECUSA to be in schism from the rest of the Catholic Church.

Should the faithful ignore scandal and work with it? they cant, because their pastor, the voice and teacher should do this job...

Then we should do it, or provide oversight were schismatic oversight is already exetant.

Originally Posted by get

Too bad for you, no one is making him listen to me.

No one is making you talk, either. Simply because you have a right to speak doesn't mean you should.

If I was in a church that decided to become Mormon, I most certainly would take the "cowards" way out. There are some problems that should not be solved from the inside

'Should' or 'can?' And saying that ECUSA's difficulties is tantamount to conversion to Mormonism is a silly overstatement.

I do not claim that this is the solution to all problems, but it seems to be the source if yours.

I think the source is much more complex than that, actually, and it goes back to 1517.

So you would group the ECUSA as comparable, though oppisite, of the UPC?

No. ECUSA does not deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and you know that, and you know that's not what I meant.

The yeast is let in, and it is spreading.

And simply leaving solves the problem how?

Originally Posted by Mat

While I admire and appriciate your desire to stay and fight for what is Right, how far is too far?

Altering doctrine in the creeds. Which is not what is going on here at all.

Oh yes, and just out curiosity, are you a priest?

I might end up being one, if this week goes according to my plan.

[Mathaytace ><>]

'Should' or 'can?' And saying that ECUSA's difficulties is tantamount to conversion to Mormonism is a silly overstatement.

No it isn't.

The ECUSA is allowing unrepentant sin to be acceptable among the clergy.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Mathaytace><>

The ECUSA is allowing unrepentant sin to be acceptable among the clergy.

And that is different from any other institution, how?

[Mathaytace ><>]

There is a difference between sin, and unrepentant sin.

There is a difference between it occuring because men are sinful, and proclaiming it acceptable.

[Ted Logan]

Everyone has unrepented sins, mathaytace. I really wish AlwaysReforming.com hadn't disappeared, because I presented an argument concerning this very issue and compared it to another issue which is very often debated but not allowed on CGR. I will PM you a little bit of my reasoning if you like, but be warned that it is an issue which many people find offensive and is also sexual in nature.

None of us knows all of our secret sins or recognizes them.

All the same, I would like to say to Isaac that while his stance concerning creedal doctrine is nice indeed, I'm not convinced. By this standard, the Episcopate could abolish monogamy and institute shared marriages. Would that be far enough?

For me, the crux of the matter is that this is not the only issue causing schism. It is the catalyst for an emulsion which has been simmering for some time. The ordination of women for some people (not for me) is still an issue. The ordination of divorcees is an issue for me, and for others. The fact that we have priests and bishops in New England who deny creedal truths is also in the mix. This is the issue that woke people up. We can't sit idle and allow heresy and gross doctrinal error to persist any longer. Just as Isaac said, Robinson should never have been allowed into the presbytery, but he was. Everyone knew that John Spong was a heretic before he published it all on the eve of his retirement in a sickening book. There are many within the power structure of the church who need to be found out and booted. The reason why this is such a big issue is because it piggybacks on other, even more important issues; issues of Christology, Soteriology, Theology Proper, Sacramentology, and methodology.

The reason I say that this is not a cut-and-dry issue, centofanti, is for the reason provided by Isaac. There has been no renunciation of creedal doctrine by this man. If this were the only issue in the ECUSA, I wouldn't even be thinking that schism was the appropriate solution. But the problem is compounded by other issues.

[Mathaytace ><>]

None of us knows all of our secret sins or recognizes them.

I should have been clearer..

I meant known Unrepentant sin, if I don't know I sinned, how can I be held responsible?

[Mike Graham]

Romans 1-3, we can most certainly be held responsible for sins we do not know about, thank God He forgives His chrildrens' unknown sins in His infinite grace.

That being said, this is not an issue of not knowing, but of willful ignorance. I od not believe I have ever been confronted with God's word about a sin that I am unrepentant of.

[Mathaytace ><>]

That is what I mean, we have a gracious God.

I don't communicate clearly sorry!

[Athanasius]

Aaron and Isaac...I think what you guys are saying is correct in calling for reformation from within...don't get me wrong.

But you guys are both in fairly orthodox dioceses. I think...Isaac, which diocese are you in this week? "Paul Zahl is my all in all?"

What about those who are in dioceses were the gospel has been abandoned, and there is no orthodox pulpit under which to sit (and be accountable to). Many of those leaving are facing that problem...

I myself cannot be under a revisionist bishop, as I am called to be accountable to him. You guys don't really have that problem...so make sure you take that into acount in your rhetoric.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by AlwaysReforming

But you guys are both in fairly orthodox dioceses. I think...Isaac, which diocese are you in this week? "Paul Zahl is my all in all?"

I'm in AL. Quite permanently, actually, and MS' bishop is pretty good, too. In fact, most of Province IV (with the notable exception of Atlanta) is orthodox.

What about those who are in dioceses were the gospel has been abandoned, and there is no orthodox pulpit under which to sit (and be accountable to). Many of those leaving are facing that problem...

First, I'd disagree with the premise of the question; I find it incredibly difficult to imagine that even in Newark, there exists no orthodox parishes (in fact, FIFNA and AAC list several in Newark). It is understandable that in geographically humongeous dioceses this might be an issue, but not for the majority of orthodox Episcopalians.

I myself cannot be under a revisionist bishop, as I am called to be accountable to him. You guys don't really have that problem...so make sure you take that into acount in your rhetoric.

Which is easily solved through alt. oversight. Moreover, if the premise from the AAC is correct (that the heterodox have left, and the orthodox are staying) then the entire discussion is relatively moot.

[centofanti]

I cant help but be reminded of what's painted for us in the bible... of the problem peter had with early doctrine, with paul. he rebuked peter. peter was indeed set straight by paul, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit...

now is it possible then that bishop robinson is inspired by the Spirit? (i say this with fear really)

remember Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (john 16:12-13). Is Jesus speaking through mr. robinson? if not then why should people leave the church because of robinson? Can bishops have relations with other men and still not even be rebuked? the souls of many are in the balance.

what this event for the Anglican church boils down to is that the Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) and the bible alone theory doesn't work in practice -- The fact that the Spirit is no longer in a chruch where it was once does not square with the bible....