Comments on: BREAKING: BC Supreme Court Decision

By: Frank Wirrell

Frank Wirrell — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:02:15 +0000

For Bill #12
I have only two questions for you.
1. Just who does Michael Ingham invite back. It definitely is not those who accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. By his words and actions he clearly denies both and, as such, cannot really officiate at the Lord’s Supper. How could that be possible when he believes all religions lead to the same place? If that were true what would be the purpose of Christ’s suffering and death, and more importantly, what would that say about the justice of God in putting his Son through that suffering and death?
Michael Ingham’s invitation is solely to those who willingly accept his apostasy or worse still those who are taken in by his deceptive ways. If he were truly interested in the Gospel – something that is impossible considering his current beliefs – he would gladly allow the clergy and congregations to continue in their ministries. You must remember God’s word is NOT subject to the approval of bishops and definitely not subject to any majority vote at any synod.
2. Do you really believe Michael Ingham is reaching out “like a loving father”?? Consider all the facts, his invitation is more like that by a spider to a fly. I pray that all true believers will not be taken in by this slick invitation.
We are not the “break away group” as you state but rather at the orthodox believers who accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. A Christian must accept both unconditionally. We were never promises an easy time. The truth of Scripture is not determined by social acceptance or attitudes.

As to your claim that we would have triumphed you are forgetting the court is a civil court and, as such, is not concerned with theological issues. That is one of the main reasons the Diocese steered matters in that direction.

It is time for us to consider the words of hymn number 121 in the blue Book of Common Praise:-
“Christian doest 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.” You will undoubtedly want to check the remainder of this much needed words at this time. It is definitely applicable to this situation.

By: Gerry O'Brien

Gerry O'Brien — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:29:26 +0000

Bill #12 –
You say you have been reading both sides of this situation Bill…. Are your eyes open?
IF, and I emphasize the word IF, you are truly aware of this whole situation and IF you believe in the Written Word Of God (The Holy Bible) and IF you believe in Truth and IF you really understand ~ then, Bill, you would not possibly be able to take the stand you have taken.
Wolves in Sheep’s clothing come in two types……
Those who take action and then those who sit on the sideline and support the wolves….. You must be a sideline sitter and supporter, Huh?

By: David

David — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:27:07 +0000

“Sinner” won’t be making any more comments.

By: Warren

Warren — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:41:13 +0000

It looks like sinner is working overtime to live up to his name. Hopefully he’ll get to the part about repentance in the Bible sometime soon.

By: Sinner

Sinner — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:50:50 +0000

Comment deleted by admin

By: Brian DeVisser

Brian DeVisser — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:51:06 +0000

Warren, you stole my thought exactly! So many faithful witnesses through the ages hardly ‘triumphant’ in this sense, yet they received (will receive?) a crown of glory!

Brian

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:40:49 +0000

Bill (#12), in a comment on another thread, I recently claimed that “my ultimate allegiance is to God’s Word.” Therefore, if you can show from God’s Word where the “break away group” is “behaving in direct contrast to basic Christian belief”, I need to pay attention. Please note, however, that I’m not interested in one or two verses rippped out of their immediate context, or out of the context of the entirety of Scripture (such verses are inevitably easily countered by other verses also ripped out of their context). I’m interested in a more doctrinal view. I would also like to know your stance concerning the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. I hold to both.

I’m also interested in your Scriptural basis for the following comment:

I also believe if the break-away group’s position was correct and truly supported by God, they would have triumphed over a Bishop they call apostate!

Extending your logic, it would seem that you don’t believe the Apostles held a correct positon on much of anything or were supported by God. But maybe I misunderstand?

By: David

David — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:38:16 +0000

Bill [#12],
Bp. Ingham did not say all are welcome in the ACoC: the invitation for parishioners to stay with the diocese was not extended to the parish’s clergy, including J. I. Packer.

The ANiC parishes trust God and his provision. The fact that they were not successful in the lawsuit does not lessen that trust; if following God’s leading always meant earthly success, Jesus would not have died on the cross, early Christians would not have been eaten by lions and ANiC would have won the court case. As I suspect you know – it doesn’t work that way.

Bp. Ingham’s invitation has less of the loving father about it and more of the invitation of the spider to the fly.

ANiC does not claim to be “righteous”; it is because we are not righteous that we need the salvation that only Christ offers – the uniqueness of which Michael Ingham has denied.

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:31:25 +0000

On the other side – a break away group wanting to exclude certain people.

There’s where you are wrong. It is not a matter of inclusion – all are truly welcome in ANiC churches. It is a matter of doctrine, and the authority of the bible.

It also depends upon how you define triumph. By worldly definitions, yes, it looks like Ingham won. However, as our archbishop said, “They get the stuff, we get the souls”. That seems more in tune with a biblical definition of triumph to me.

By: Bill McFarlane

Bill McFarlane — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:16:17 +0000

You know I have been reading both sides of this situation and it is really very sad isn’t it. On one hand we have a Bishop saying ALL are welcome in the Anglican Church. On the other side – a break away group wanting to exclude certain people. This group seems increasingly embittered after being told by the courts they can not keep church property that is not theirs. Hatred sews it’s own rewards. I also believe if the break-away group’s position was correct and truly supported by God, they would have triumphed over a Bishop they call apostate!
They did not triumph. The Diocese of New Westminster seems to be reaching out to these people much like the loving father who welcomed his prodigal son back into the fold. The break away group’s reaction released in a brief statement suggests it will study the court decision while individual members rush to the internet to heap derision upon the Bishop and the Diocese. I think Jesus Christ was very clear when he talked about Christian actions and Christian values. So far what I am seeing here is a break away group behaving in direct contrast to basic Christian belief yet claiming to be righteous.