This sheds light on the proceedings :--

http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/gencon2009.html

Lorenzo

Please forgive the delay in responding.  I was ill two days ago, and unable to access the website yesterday.  Yours is the post I most desired to address.

You may wish to take into consideration that yours is a rather extreme Calvinist opinion, and a late one at that.
I am not an extreme Calvinist at all.  I am a rather ordinary, conventional, well within one sigma, standard 'government issue, one each' Calvinist.   

Most orthodox theologians have generally held that morality is not revealed.
None that I know of, but OK.  It does make one wonder why God spent so much time revealing morality in Scripture if morality is not revealed.

Hence their belief that, if they behave uprightly, even unbelievers can be saved.
By definition, Christians (whether theologians or not) deny that unbelievers can be saved.  For if a man could be saved by behaving uprightly, then there would have been no need for the Cross, and the cup would have been taken away from the Lord Jesus at His own request.  The purpose of the Law is not to define the behaviors by which men may justify themselves by to their own works.  It exists to show men precisely that they cannot keep the law and thereby justify themselves.  Even so much as one sin is sifficient to earn the condemnation of God.

More crucially, should supernatural revelation be needed to behave ethically, Christians would not be able to put their faith in God by knowing him to be good in the first place.
Men cannot know God at all except that God works spiritual life in them.  We all of us by nature hate God, and rebel against Him.  We do not recognize He is good and in response put our faith in Him.  We are the blind and incapable of seeing.  We are the slaves bound to the will of our master.  We are the spiritually dead.  Of ourselves, we can do nothing.   Instead, God seeks after man.  The center of the Gospel is the story of how God acted to redeem men who could not redeem themselves, and who deserved nothing but judgment. He opens the eyes of the blind.  He redeems the slave from the slave market.  He raises the dead.  Man has no part in any of this other than to respond to what God has done.  "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Even in the eyes of John Calvin you would make the deadly mistake of simply equating Bible with Revelation.
There are two forms of revelation available to man today.  There is the general revelation of creation which is sufficient to condemn man, but insufficient to save.  There is the special revelation of Scripture by which God communicates the central story of human history - God redeeming a people for Himself.  Beyond this, there is nothing.  We have no other access to the transcendent.

I take revelation to mean the imparting of truths that would otherwise pass our understanding or consciousness, or, at a stretch, which we could only arrive at with great pain and many mistakes.  No one could have figured out that God is three and yet one, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father or, stretching it, that those who mourn are blessed. But no one needs revelation to tell them that, say, the king of Assyria waged war against Jerusalem, or that king Jeroboam was sixteen when he began to reign. These are facts that we are quite naturally able to grasp with a bit of skill.
By what authority do you make such a distinction, and by what standard do you judge the differences?  It is not for man to pass judgment on what was and was not provided.  And how would he ever establish that the distinctions he makes are not driven by the sinful desires of his own heart?  You say that certain facts may be grasped with a bit of skill. I will say instead that certain moral imperatives may be grasped with gnashed teeth, and men will immediately seek out ways to free themselves from the restriction.

Nor would we turn to the Bible to tell us how to build a house or cure swine flu.
I have never said otherwise.  We turn to the Scripture with the question "How should we then live?" 

Similarly, many have argued whilst remaining in the eyes of the undivided Church impeccably orthodox that one does not need revelation when deciding between what is right and what is not. Your view of Holy Scripture is a bit exalted. 
What standard then do you apply to determine 'impeccable orthodoxy?'  What standard do you apply to determine the difference between right and wrong?  Reason is not a standard.  It is a methodology.  It depends absolutely on First Principles that once adopted determine the outcome of the syllogisms.  From where are those First Principles derived?  To determine right from wrong, you must first set immovable criteria that defines the difference.  Then you compare the outcomes of reason to that criteria.  To define that criteria according to the failings of the evil human heart is a sure path to disaster.

Surely, the commandment that I gave you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away, nor is it in heaven, that you should say Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us, so that we may hear and observe it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say: Who will cross to the other side for us, and get it for us so that we may hear and observe it? No, the word is very near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (Dt 30.11-14)
The Israelites did not themselves develop the Law by which they were bound.  They received it from God.  And it did prove too hard form the.  For the heart of man is hard as flint.  Who is then who can remove this heart of stone, and replace it with a heart of flesh - a heart upon which is written the Law of God.  Whose law?  From wence does it originate?

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.  And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.  Ezekiel 36:26-27"

carl

'Please ignore the provocative Liberal noises and continue the Open Evangelical debate.'

Yes--surely this was intended to be a debate about Fulcrum's response to what General Convention did, not about whether what it did was right or wrong. I've suggested that Fulcrum's response can only be judged once we know what Fulcrum was trying to achieve, which is still not clear.

I suspect that by now all the readers who could have contributed something interesting to that discussion have moved on to other threads, or other sites.

Thank you Carl.

I think this is a circular argument.  You say that ‘These attempts [to reconcile Scripture with a positive view of homosexual behaviour] invariably assume that homosexual behaviour is a moral good and then read that assumption into the text’.  Is it not the case that, equally, there can be an assumption that homosexual behaviour is a moral evil and then read that assumption into the text.

Surely, both you and I need to come to the texts with an open mind (since the issue is a debatable one), looking carefully, as I have tried to show, at the context and cultural understandings of the time.  Thus, I suggest, just as not all heterosexual behaviour is moral (as in exploitative sex, rape, abuse of women outside and inside marriage, paedophilia, etc) so homosexual behaviour clearly can be immoral (where it is exploitative, promiscuous, etc.)  My contention is to raise the question as to whether the handful of ‘anti-gay’ texts in the Bible necessarily exclude the legitimacy (and morality) of faithful, committed gay relationships.  I think it is highly questionable that they do.

Let the hermeneutic debate continue.

Roger Hurdling

"Both positions can be seen as seeking to be faithful to scripture"

I am well aware of the exegetical attempts to reconcile Scripture with a positive view of homosexual behavior.  These attempts invariably assume that homosexual behavior is a moral good, and then read that assumption into the text.  This is the only avenue the homosexual apologist can take, since every mention of homosexuality in Scripture is condemnatory.  One does not faithfully handle the Scripture by reading one's own preferences into it.

carl

"I assume you include in your strictures on the immoralty of adultery, those who having undertaken life-long Holy Marriage the divorce; and the marry a second person during the life-time of their first spouse?"

Yes, L Roberts, I do.  And I have said so. 

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/21014#344587

carl

This website highlights an article 'The new order emerging from the Anglican disintegration' in America: The National Catholic Weekly which goes on to state:

This piece at Episcopal Cafe offers a fascinating example of just how strong in parts of the TEC is its  anti-Catholic prejudice: Dr Williams's efforts are seen as "Romanesque" and examples of "Catholic authoritarianism".

If the writer had bothered to look, he would have realised that the piece was written by me, and I've just checked and I live near a town called Barton-upon-Humber in North Lincolnshire, England, and so what I write has no connection with The Episcopal Church. Jim Naughton just asked me to write something about once a month, and sent out an appeal for extra as he was short, and I knocked up something quickly. So really my comments are being elevated way beyond their import as representing something they don't. On the other hand, I might have my finger on the pulse...

Tangential point? Provocative? Come on!

Roger, I am sorry you feel provoked by some of the comments on this thread..However I do not even know if the noises I make are liberal or not .But I am concerned deeply concerned about the issue of (a) Women being put in the same brackets as Homosexuals..Itt gives neither side a true identity ..I am also mindful of the fact that to deny people communion denies them the route to communicate with God and therefore stand any hope of being able to resolve conflicts..It is only with conflict resolution will Gods true word be heard interpreted and absorbed..

I personally feel that it is totally unacceptable and at odds with any clergy calling to not be able to work alongside people whose lifestyle you may not like..I say that on the basis of the amount of harm that has been caused to people when extremist views are expressed and displayed openly..Or adversly the amount of harm that is caused when people are forced to be silent especially with regards to sexuality..

 As far as the plot for Rowan is concerned I feel that in an age of terrorismm that is a very emotive way of expressing yourself when we have people dying at war all over the country..

Finally   Lord please be our guide when we are having our discussions enable us not to be harmful when we write and grant us peace and understanding as we try to serve you and go about our daily work Amen

Dear Carl,

What happens on many of these threads is that L Roberts, or Pluralist, or someone, makes a provocative comment tangential to the concern of the thread and then other people respond to this provocative comment, diverting the thread from the 'matter at hand.' This, it seems to me, is what is happening here. Please ignore the provocative Liberal noises and continue the Open Evangelical debate.

Roger