Anglicans need to face reality

ECUSA have finally gone so far that hopefully Rowan Williams will have no more wriggle room and he will have to face up to what everyone else has known for years - What he calls a risk of fracture has been a total schism for years.
The Bishops in Africa and Asia have known it for years and have plainly said so.
The Anglican leadership has to face reality. The ECUSA (and others) have been thumbing their noses at the Bible for too long.
Rowan Williams need to wake up to the affect of his own liberal leanings, albeit that he has supposedly put them to one side for the sake of unity.
All Anglicans need to wake up and demand Biblical fidelity from those who lead them.
No more committees to discuss homosexuality - there is nothing to discuss, it is wrong, it is a sin, God calls it an abomination. How much clearer does God have to be?
What should be discussed is how to reach out to homosexuals with the truth of Gods redeeming love, but that has to be hand in hand with a recognition of their sin.
We wouldn't reach out to adulterers or thieves without recognising their sin and their need to repent of it so they can be made right with God.
Unity is not to be achieved at any cost or by compromising on the clear teaching of scripture.

Found it - (I think)

Okay, I think I have found the 'source' of Suzannes 'article'. (if anyone cares)

I believe she got it from 'More Than Meets the Eye' by Ann Nyland and considering the vitriolic and badly written nature of much of the book, no wonder she didn't want to admit were she got it from. (Also it might have been from the online version of the book that was on GWtW because she does say she came across it whilst surfing)

But I have to say I would still like to see an actual copy of the full original article before I am fully happy about its provenance because I have found Ann Nyland to be very untrustworthy in her book when reporting what people are supposed to have said or written. I actually have a copy of this book and I was stunned at the shear level of what it would be more than kind to call 'a creative approach' to reporting what others had written & said.

She may well be accurate in her reporting in this instance, but given her track record elsewhere in the book.....well lets just say I currently find it easier to believe the opposite of what she has to say without a shed load of varifiable evidence to the contrary. She really is her own worst enemy.

Some clarity!

Wayne Leman was kind enough to clear up some of the uncertainty, see below;

"Glenn, the quote by R.C. Sproul is genuine. He said what Suzanne has quoted. I linked to his quote several months ago from my TNIV links webpage. Unfortunately, when I now try the citation link from that webpage I get a dead link.You are welcome to cite the url from my webpage if you like as a source--it was a legitimate source at one time. Apparently someone has deleted the webpage that used to be on the Internet with that quote from Dr. Sproul."

But, this still begs the question as to why the reluctance to give a source by Suzanne and why the comment - "...but I feel it is better without that context." What is so dubious about the 'context'?

Should do better!!

I have just posted the following on the Better Bibles Blog;

'Suzanne, why are you unwilling to say where you found the quote that you have given in the original post.You said

"I apologize for not saying where I got the quote, but I feel it is better without that context. I have no reason to think that it is not accurate, but I cannot get into the Tabletalk archives."

As far as I can see there are no Tabletalk archives on the Ligonier site anyway.I'm sorry, but all we have is an unsubstantiated quote from a source that is dubious at best and if not dubious, why not give it. Obviously I can't say either way. I don't subscribe to Tabletalk, but to build an accusation against R C Sproul without giving anybody the chance to investigate the varacity of your 'source' is at best an abrogation of your own blog guidelines. I expect better standards from your goodself, so should you. '

To get the full context you would need to see the original post 'Apology to my pastor's wife' + 34 comments. (On the Better Bibles Blog)

The bottom line is that an accusation has been made against R C Sproul and Suzanne McCarthy, as can been seen from her quote, is very reluctant to reveal where she found the quote she has used to cast aspersions on his abilities as a theologian.
In other respects Suzanne is usually very meticulous and is normally very quick to point out what she perceives as a lacking in this area in others arguments.
R C Sprouls main crime seems to be that he had the temerity to sign up to the 'Colorado Springs Guidelines'.
You can't help but get the impression that to do so is make you a less than a serious theologian.

I made the mistake of thinking that Wayne Leman was an egalitarian (see previous post and comments for my apology), but there is no such error with Suzanne. Definitely a 'dyed in the wool' egalitarian who allows that to warp her perception of many who are Complimentarian in viewpoint.

The theological gymnastics sometimes used by Suzanne to make the Bible say what she wants it to are not to be recommended, but are sadly typical of much that comes from the egalitarian camp.

Some of what I believe

For the sake of clarity I will state what I believe and what for me are non-negotiable; (this applies to me personally) The following are not in any particular order.

1) God created the world & the universe, and all that is in it, in 6 literal days about 6 thousand years ago (roughly)

2) The 5 Sola's as they are called

3) That Jesus is the Son of God & the Son of Man, born of a virgin, who died on the cross for the sins of those He came to save.

4) That the created order, before the fall, is the origin of male headship in the home and of male leadership of Gods Church, as evidenced by Paul in the NT.

5) Limited atonement.

6) That the Bible as we have it is the Word Of God and as such is the full and final authority in all things pertaining to Christians and the Christian life.

7) That 'Open Theism' is contrary to the revealed Word of God.

I think that will do for openers. This does not represent the totality of what I believe, but does give a reasonably fair indication of certain key elements.

God bless