No doubt about that; the question is, which god?
From the Journal:
Niagara’s nod to same-sex blessings draws mixed reviews.
The decision by the diocese of Niagara to offer same-sex blessings as of Sept. 1 has drawn mixed reactions from Anglicans in Canada.
Niagara is now the second diocese in the Anglican Church of Canada, after the Vancouver-based diocese of New Westminster, to offer a sacrament for same-sex blessings. The “Niagara Rite” may also be used for the blessing or renewal of vows for heterosexual couples celebrating a significant moment in their married life together.
“I believe that we’ve done our work of discernment,” said the diocesan bishop of Niagara, Michael Bird, when asked what made him decide to go ahead despite repeated calls for a moratorium on same-sex blessings. He noted that the votes on the matter had both resulted in an “overwhelming” majority at two successive diocesan synods – 2004 and 2008 – and had not been acted upon until now.
Bishop Bird said he also felt compelled to move forward after the diocese developed a new vision for its ministry that included a commitment to prophetic social justice-making. “What’s become clear as we have worked through that discernment process…is that for that work of justice-making to have integrity, we needed to bring this piece around same-sex blessings to a conclusion.”
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, acknowledged that the decision is bound to create some tension among bishops. But he said that Bishop Bird had informed the Canadian house of bishops of his plan when it met last October.
The last paragraph leaves little doubt that Bishop Michael Bird has the full support of Archbishop Fred Hiltz. Today, New Westminster and Niagara; for the complacent in other dioceses who believe “it can never happen here” – the direction is clear, it is only a matter of time.
What about justice for the Niagara ANiC parishes?
Kate, “justice” is their code word for “have everything our way”.
Indeed.
Heresy and myopia have a tendency to occur together.
“prophetic social justice-making” Mark my words please.
This catch-all phrase is what will usher in an all world religion.
Eliminate the the word prophetic it means nothing and is there only to glaze the eyes of lazy christians. “Social justice” (whatever that means) is to generic to pin down. There are many things that could fall under this category, feed the poor, no hungry children, enviornmental issues etc. etc. “Making” another way of saying advancing the political agenda. Note none of this says anything about Jesus. Nor Does He speak of such things.
In my E-Concordance (Bible Gateway) there are 127 Old Testament references to the word justice in the New testament there are only 8. To pursue justice in the Church is important to seek it in the world is vanity. don’t believe me? Take a look at the 8 references
with particular attention to Luke 18:1-8.
I praise God that I have yet to hear of any “Justice pursuit” in the New Anglican NA Community. Please don’t think our current litigation is seeking justice. My take is that it’s purpose is to difine or redefine the laws of the land.
“Live in the world but be not a part of it”
I think the “Niagara Rite” is ill named, it should be called the “Niagara Wrong”.
When apostasy is unchecked it knows no bounds. This is clearly proven by the total lack of action on the part of the supposed leaders, more correctly called apostates, in the ACoC. I can only ask where are the claimed orthodox clergy and that includes bishops, both active and retired. They have all made specific vows before our Lord and have come to believe that God is subject to their approval or worse still are more concerned with job security and pensions than doing the job they willingly undertook at the time of their ordination and consecration. The ACoC is, if it has not already reached that point, quickly losing any claim to be Christian and at best can only claim to be “politically correct” whatever that terminology means. From my perspective it simply means doing whatever I want with no consequences whatsoever.
I pray for their conversion but I also believe it is time for Christians in the pews to “Stand up! Stand up for Jesus”. Our eyes need to be opened,
“Christian dost thou see them,
On the Holy ground,
How the hosts of darkness
Compass thee around?
Christian, up and smite them,
Counting gain but loss;
Smite them by the merit
Of the holy Cross.”
Yes, it is a time for Christian warfare against apostasy that currently reigns within the ACoC.
#7 Frank
Please clarify what you mean by Christian warfare against apostasy and smiting them by the merit of the holy Cross. I’m afraid some unbalanced reader might inadvertently take your rhetoric literally as a call to physical violence.
#7 I am sure no one here would take that as permission to go about smoting the revisionists (is smoting a word?) The ACOC is in survival mode, bleeding members and closing churches, shake the dust from your feet now or later was the advice I was given, so sad
For #8 – Sandra has it right
What I mean by warfare is for true Anglicans in the pews to stand up and call both their priests and their church councils to account demanding that a firm stand be taken against the apostasy that is running rampant through the ACoC. It is unbelievable to see our so-called primate and his apostate colleagues either willingly joining hands with the apostates – which appears to be the case – or simply sitting back and allowing the sheep (that is us in the pews) to be lead away from our faith. We have reached the point where we many of us can no longer trust our clergy as there is virtually no attempt for the majority in the ACoC to call their brethren to account. As history tells us, absolute power corrupts absolutely and there is literally no attempt by the primate or the House of Bishops to deal with this mortal disease of apostasy. What is needed is the defrocking of apostates regardless of their level or years of employment. In the secular world they would have been dismissed long ago and there is no reason why they should not face the same fate.
#9 Sandra
This is a public online forum, so visits from unbalanced readers are to be expected. Some of those unbalanced readers might be sympathetic to our cause, but literal-minded nut-cases. Others might be opponents eager to twist our poetical words into evidence of hate crimes claiming that we encourage the actual physical smiting of an identifiable group (ACoC clergy and bishops). In any event, I think it’s worth clarifying that the Christian “warfare” advocated here is spiritual and nonviolent.
Frank You started your #10 “Sandra has it right” what about her “shake the dust from your feet now or later” . They will Frank sooner or later. What about that wonderful, prophetic, scripture quoting song “Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord.” ? this time how about an answer. In the mean time reassure Noli that you speak of Spiritual warfare and would never resort to violence.
Frank and Stuck, what do you think of Rev Turner’s position?
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/08/staying-on-thoughts-of-a-life-long-episcopalian-who-intends-to-die-so/
I can respect it.
P.S. Stuck (#12), maybe you should change your pseudonym to Unstuck. You’re sounding like you’re becoming a little unglued.
#13 I think he is wrong. The whole argument, for me, hinges on this statement:
If that were in fact true, I could respect his decision. I don’t believe that it is. All of his reasons seem to me to hinge on this, that he believes that TEC is still in basic character a Christian church. I’m not saying that every member of TEC is apostate, far from that. But I believe that in its basic institutional character, that it has left historic Christianity behind.
Kate (#13), sadly, you may be right. In some parishes, I have no doubt you are right.
The last comment should have been addressed to (#14). Sorry.
Warren #12 “maybe you should change your pseudonym to Unstuck. You’re sounding like you’re becoming a little unglued.”
Actually I never really started getting it together until after I retired. As for your assesment perhaps you could clarify?
For #17 – Stuck in Toronto
I am sure I would definitely become a little more than unglued if I were “stuck in Toronto”!! May God bless you in your retirement. I know he has blessed me by providing volunteer opportunites that are very positive.
Stuck (#17), my assessment was in relation to your suggestion that Frank could be advocating physical violence in his use of the term Christian warfare. This is something I would expect from someone who is unchurched and unfamiliar with Christian lingo. That said, there are days when I feel unglued.
Warren- your 19 “in his use of the term Christian warfare. I would expect from someone who is unchurched and unfamiliar with Christian lingo.” Like perhaps The Rev. Jim Jones? If your quote means that you don’t believe Christians are at war then I fear you may be suffering from myosis. Having said that, to apply that term to apostates IS incorrect we are not at war with any brother or sister rather against principalities and powers.
In any event what I said was “In the mean time reassure Noli that you speak of Spiritual warfare and would never resort to violence.” Who, by the way had a very wise and valid point in His #11 to Sandra.
For Warren #13:-
Dr. Philip Turner places his emphasis on unity and seems prepared to place all other issues on the sidelines. As a parent and grandparent I would state the following scenario and ask for your opinion. If your child was in a school that taught errors or values that were in direct contradiction to your beliefs, would you not remove the child and place him/her in another institution? The Anglican Communion consists only of members that seek to be true to the Gospel and the authority of Scripture. Segments that claim to be in the Communion that accept, advocate and teach otherwise are not Anglican regardless of claim to be so. What we have in the ACoC are leaders that either teach apostasy and reject both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ or are content to sit back and allow this fatal disease to wreak havoc in the church. The final result will be an organization that cannot claim to be either Anglican or Christian. The dividing line is simply to be an Anglican one must first be a Christian. There is no such term as an “Anglican apostate”. One who is an apostate but he cannot claim to be Anglican.
Frank (#21), I said I could respect his opinion, not that I agreed with it (not fully at least). It is one of the more cogent and reasonable arguments that I’ve heard for staying in the past 3-4 years. As well, Rev Turner does not seem to be pushing others to stay.
Overall, I agree with you.
Sitting in a prayer meeting a couple of weeks ago I asked the Lord for his opinion of the so called prophetic announcements of the Bishops of Niagara and Ottawa. On opening my Bible it went to Jeremiah 23 a chapter on false Prophecy
Re: #21, Frank, you said:
I’m sure that many parents might want to, but for the majority of parents in Canada, the realistic answer is “no”, albeit in part due to the lack of options. In Ontario, the only funded systems are the public and Roman Catholic systems. If we’re talking about the teaching of Christian values, you’re more likely to get that in the RC schools, but both subscribe to essentially the same education system (which I have issues with, but we’re not going to get into that now; read The Abolition of Man or Screwtape Proposes a Toast for more on this). Chances are, though, that in either system children will be taught things – or at least presented with a world-view – with which many Christians would disagree. The only other options, however, are home-schooling or private school, neither of which are realistic for most parents, due to a lack of time, energy, resources, or availability of locations.
What is one to do? Stick with our imperfect system and do one’s best to correct it, or go with an alternative means and suffer the consequences, some of which may be worse than the original problem? The problem of whether to stay within the Anglican Church of Canada is very similar.
I don’t think it is similar, Andrew, not in the big cities, anyway. There is no lack of authentically Christian churches to choose from, in most places. There is sometimes a lack of authentically Christian Anglican churches, though.
Andrew (#24), your analogy is full of holes.
#23 John Taylor
Be careful. Next time your Bible might fall open to Deuteronomy 13.
Not sure I get your point, Noli…
#27, #28 and #23: Noli, Kate and Andrew:
Re: Andrew’s post in #23: Sometimes we get a wake-up call like this from a ‘random’ passage before us.
But I’m with Noli if he is balking at an implied method of seeking guidance from Scripture. The ‘hat-pin method’, as it is called, works like this: Close your eyes, open your Bible and jab with a finger (or hat-pin) to find what the Lord is saying to you. It’s a bit like opening fortune cookies only more dangerous.
Having said that, I think most of us know (including Andrew) that, ‘to rightly handle the Word of God’ we read Scripture humbly, methodically, in context and with reverence.
As I read the Scriptures humbly, methodically in context and with reverence daily, I have no doubt in my mind that God can speak through his written word. However, one should always test what one receives. To do that we can Go to Deuteronomy Chapter 13 {Noel] Where God says you could be deceived into following other Gods. The prophetic revelations of those Bishops is contrary to the stand of The Anglican Covenent outlining its stand on same sex blessings. What spirit are they listening to. See ” The Anglican Covenent: Shared Discernment Recognized By All ” commentary on September 3rd posted American Anglican Council web site.
The most famous example I know of the hat pin method allegedly produced the following sequence:
Matthew 27:5b (Then Judas went away and hanged himself)
Luke 10:37b (Go and do likewise)
John 27:13b (What you are about to do, do quickly).
The hat pin method is more formally known as bibliomancy and basically it’s divination dressed up in pious garb. This superstitious practice is common to many cultures, each of which employ their own respective sacred texts.
I think it’s dangerous because God doesn’t routinely give supernatural signs every time we invite them, so most results will be random. Generally those readings will be harmless, but sometimes by sheer chance the Bible might open to inappropriate passages that seem to suggest unwise actions harmful to oneself or others (like Gordon’s example in #31 above). For that reason alone I think the practice should be discouraged.
It’s not that I don’t believe in miracles. On the contrary, I believe that God is quite capable of tweaking the otherwise random natural order of things, and occasionally does so for His own good purposes. However, I believe there other forces at work in the world, too, much weaker than God but also capable of tweaking otherwise random events in small ways, forces which aren’t above twisting Scripture and which delight in mischief and evil. They tend to exploit divination, necromancy, and other occult activities. Bibliomancy is not immune to their malign influence just because the instrument employed is a Bible rather than a ouija board.
To be fair, I don’t necessarily think that is what John Taylor was doing. There is a big difference between “the hat pin” and noticing connections between your bible study and your life circumstances (or the sermon you heard last week, etc, etc.)
Kate me darlin I think you are correct and Noli was a bit harsh however there are two points, I have often heard Pentecostals making a point by saying “I had a vision” or “God spoke to me” as a matter of fact I once got into trouble with a friend who often used this in emphasis by asking “what did He sound like”. the other side is I have had more than one occasion to be astounded at the phenominal coincidences that have occurred. I no longer call them coincidences.
Re: John Taylor and flippin the pages open.
Noli – You are being a tad harsh in your assessment here. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to admit that you have done the same thing on occasion. Most people have!
You (noli) say that God doesn’t routinely give supernatural signs every time we ask for them – true – BUT, He gives them more times than we notice when we decide to pay attention. It seems to me that people like to take exception to the ways of “Pentecostal” things, but if we were to read the book of Acts we would see many more examples than we can today imagine…… What makes today any different than then? Likely it is our lack of supernatural FAITH that has limited us in seeing the wonderful signs and miracles that God has for us when He puts them right in front of us.
I wouldn’t be too critical of the ways of the Pentecostals and the Non-Denominationals folks as it seems to me that they seem to have things ‘happening’ where much of the ‘mainlines’ don’t. Isn’t this part of the reason why we have gone to ANiC and the new north American Province? Are we not looking to be closer to God?
Attention STUCK IN TORONTO:
On another string I mentioned that I would find some differences for you in translations…..well, there are hundreds, if not thousands, but here is a stark one. This is using the KING JAMES VERSION as the base Version and here is what happens.
NIV:
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”[f] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
KJV:
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
OOOOOPS…Gee, I wonder which version forgot verse 37???
On my next post, I will place a URL that you can look up and get your eyes opened as to just how much the “newer versions” leave out. Then add into them Eugene Petersens “Message Version” and I say version since that is the way it shows up on Bible gateway and it becomes more watered down. Fun, sure it’s fun to compare the versions, however, maybe it is reading those “slightly deceptive” things that can change the course of our ship just enough “seconds” of Degrees to send us to a different place than we originally set out to go to.
STUCK IN TORONTO
Here is the URL, enjoy spending quite a bit of time on it.
http://www.holybible.com/resources/version_comparison_chart.htm
Gerry (#36 & #37), I’m currently auditing an OT Intro course from a very conservative Bible Institute (most of the staff were trained at John MacArthur’s seminary) and have been learning a bit about biblical manuscript evidence. I think you will find that even very conservative, evangelical biblical scholars readily admit that the KJV is not based on the best manuscripts. Generally speaking, it used manuscripts that are more recent and less accurate than those available to biblical scholars today. Better Bibles will provide explanations in the margin notes when verses have been changed or dropped as compared to old translations like the KJV. What the newer versions “leave out”, was likely never in the original autograph (the writing of the original author) and was added much later by an over-enthusiastic scribe.
For someone concerned about translation accuracy (although perhaps not readability), I would suggest the NASB or ESV as a much better choice than the KJV (even though it is the Bible I used in my youth and that I memorized many verses from). Although not my first choice, I think the NIV is also more accurate than the KJV. No translation is perfect, however, and you will find detractors of every translation currently in print.
Warren #38:
To each his/her own Warren…… I give consideration to what you have said and yes I have a copy of the NIV which is sometimes use, however, having said that, when I look at Versions and see that they are detracting from the Word by removing KEY Words and even Key verses, I kind of get a funny feeling and it’s not one of those ones that is all “warm and fuzzy”. When I see much much removed from the NIV as compared to the KJV I cannot see where one can possibly look upon it as being more accurate n’or can I see where when the changes take away important but don’t seem to add other things of importance how it can be more accurate. Looks like new age reductionism to me……
I will get a copy of the NASB however and will do comparisons there also……who can say where that will go.
Like I say, to each his/her own.
Warren:
How is it then that the following Scriptures have been changed from the KJV to what is found in the Versions indicated? I have difficulty with one of the Ten Commandments being removed.
Romans 13:9 REMOVE “Thou shall not bear false witness” Note: One of the 10 commandments. NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC
I Cor. 14:33 CHANGE “author of confusion” TO “”a God of disorder” et al. NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC
2 Cor. 2:17 CHANGE “corrupt” TO “peddle, sell” (“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.) Christ. ) NIV, NASV, NKJ, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC
Ephesians 5:9 CHANGE “fruit of the Spirit” TO “fruit of the light” NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC
Hebrews 7:21 REMOVE “after the order of Melchisedec” NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NC
Gerry (#40), you should have picked a more glaring example – the woman caught in adultery. Most biblical scholars, conservative and liberal, now agree that John 7:53-8:11 was not in the original manuscript written by John and was a later addition. Likely because of the furor that would have erupted the editors of the ESV were not willing to remove this passage, but did add the following footnote:
I do not have the knowledge to argue individual translation choices, but have studied enough to have confidence in the newer translations.
Based on your preceding comments, and at the risk of stereotyping, I would place you in the King-James-only inerrantist camp whereas I would place myself in the evangelical inerrantist camp (I fully agree with the Chicago Statement on inerrancy from 1978, which J.I. Packer signed). These terms are explained in the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Well hardly any room for me at all
for me translations save for one or two are all valid. What is important is not so much the accuracy but the discovery of what makes one’s heart sing. In other words “trust not in your own understanding”
But far be it from me, you good men just keep on at it. But don’t forget the Grace bestowed, that allows you access.
Stuck (#42),
No doubt this would warm the heart of all liberal Anglicans. It goes right to the heart of their theology.
Warren:
I certainly am not in a position to take J.I. Packer to task on what is correct or incorrect, HOWEVER, having said that, I took a look at five different versions including the KJV, ESV, NASV, NIV and of course the MESSAGE. Strangely, I find that the NIV and the Message are the weakest (on one scripture word) and weakened the meaning of that particular scripture. Below is the minute effort of research so done:
Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible conceived in 1604 and brought to fruition in 1611 by the Church of England.[
Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)
22'(A)You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
When Evangelical Protestants received the Revised Standard Version, certain texts regarding the virginity of Mary and other Old Testament passages whose Christian interpretation referred to Jesus did not follow traditional Evangelical translation. [3] The New International Version project was started after a meeting in 1965 at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois between the Christian Reformed Church, National Association of Evangelicals, and a group of international scholars.[4] The New York Bible Society (now the Colorado Springs-based International Bible Society) was selected to do the translation. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978. It underwent minor revision in 1984. A major revision and update was announced on September 1, 2009 and is due out in 2011[5].
Leviticus 18:22 (The Message)
22 “Don’t have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.
Maybe the writer meant that it was OK to have sex with a man so long as it wasn’t done the same way as it is with a woman!
The word “Lord” occurs a whopping 7970 times in the KJB — more than any other noun. Of the 8,000-plus different words used in the KJB, the “Lord” ranks 14th among the most occurrences (number 13 is the single letter “a”). Only helper words such as “the”; “of”; “in”; “to”; et. al. occur more often.
The Message contains the “Lord” only 71 times! The “Lord” ranks 1087th among words in The Message. It appears the same number of times as words like “question” or “reputation.”
In the New Testament, (ironically, the Testament of the “Lord” Jesus Christ) the “Lord” appears a skimpy 23 times in The Message. The Message NEVER directly honors Jesus Christ as Lord. The “Lord Jesus” occurs 118 times in the King James Bible. The “Lord Jesus Christ” occurs 84 times in the King James Bible. The phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus” is not in The Message! The outright denial of the “Lord” Jesus has never occurred in ANY translation.
http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html
Leviticus 18:22 (English Standard Version)
22(A) You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
First published in fall of 2001
Warren, I am not into studies like you and several others on this site and am just one of those “good old boys”, but, I just have that feeling that all this revisionism started around the 1960′s and ’70′s
just about the same time as the “new age” phenomenon started.
I don’t think it is any accident that versions (some) continue to water down the Holy Scriptures; no more of an accident than the movies coming out of hollywood started showing all the lack of morality that we are seeing today and just after one king made it big and another king was to start……go figure.
Like I said before, to each his/her own and so be it.
Blessings.
Gerry (#44), the real attack on the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture started in earnest in the early 1800s. It is nothing new.
Gentlemen thousands if not more thousands of examples can be found for the misuse of scripture through interpretation. the misuse of translations on the other hand only occurs when a translation is created to emphasize a sect such as the Jehovah Witness’s “New World” Bible (that is from memory and may not be completely accurate) but you get my Drift. Gerry I sympathize with your caution about new translations compared to the almost magical beauty of what I term a divine gift to English speaking mankind the KJV. This is what we were weened and raised on. But it is not perfect particularly in comparison with the language of today. Just for fun look up the dictionary definition of Lord. I am sure you don’t think of God as a landowner. Neither did Mr. Peterson. If you softened your stance you might find a delight in Mr. Petersons work.
Warren #33 My goodness Man.. I’m far to old to be told now that I am in the wrong camp. Or I’ve been voting wrong since trudeau. Does your comment mean that you have never experienced the tears, and lumps in your throat, joy in your heart that makes it sing, all incidently, manifestations of the Holy Spirit? Especially when you come across a particular passage that jumps out at, answers nagging questions and brings such beautiful peace? Is this limited to Anglican Liberals? please please say it isn’t so.
Goodnight Warren
Here we are again…….doing just what the enemy wants us to do, having unhelpful arguments within the body. How unfortunate…
Seems that the KJV was good for some close to 500 years but now our “advanced” society is able to come up with more valuable and more effective words about the Holy Scriptures. Seems it did pretty well without the help of revisionism.
Anyway, there you have it….. Warren, this has been enlightening and I sense neither of us will move on our opinions and STUCK doesn’t want to be told he is in the wrong camp….perhaps it is time to move on to something else.
Goodnight my Brothers.
Gerry, it isn’t a matter of revisionism. The KJV translators plain got some things wrong, mostly because there have been more ancient copies of scripture discovered since they made their translation. Frankly, I think it is unwise to get too attached to any one translation. Translation is an art, not a science, and it is inevitable that small errors and inaccuracies willl slip in. The best way to guard against that is to switch the translation used for devotional and study time every once in a while.
Stuck (#47), unless I misinterpreted your meaning (which is entirely possible given our track record), your statement summarizes what ails North American evangelicalism; truth is secondary and feelings are of first importance. God has revealed Himself through His Word, and through propositional truth, and He commands His children to believe. I don’t deny a place for feelings and emotion, but, if they are not grounded in absolute truth, they will be led astray by man’s sinful nature. This is what I believe has happened with the ACoC – people are seeking religious experience rather than the truth. They view the Bible as a helpful guide that may contain some truth rather than placing their trust in it as God’s truth.
I believe God’s message for man has been accurately preserved in the Bible and that His children can put their complete faith in it. If the Bible is not accurate and cannot be trusted, why waste time on Christianity?
Rightly grounded in the understanding of one’s own sin and unworthiness, and the unfathomable magnitude of God’s grace, feelings of love and gratitude should naturally arise. Believe it or not, I’ve even shed the odd tear myself.
Goodnight, Stuck.