NNS,

<<Based on OzSpen's explaination (sic) of your view of the bible, I can understand that all of this might be new information to you. Things you have not heard, have not studied, or even have not considered.>>

From my interaction with Sells, it is not that the Bible-believing, evangelical understanding is 'new information', it's because he rejects that interpretation.

His history of being in the Anglican church would have enabled him to understand the evangelical Sydney Anglican diocese, which is the largest Anglican diocese in Australia. There is a strong evangelical Anglican tradition in Australia (incl. the Melbourne diocese) and around the world. However, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, modernism and postmodernism reject Bible-believing interpretations.

Instead, my dialogues with those who promote these views lead me to conclude they don't allow the text to speak for itself (exegesis) but impose their worldviews on the text (eisegesis).

<<Shouldn't the teachings in the bible have a rich history of theologians interpreting the bible and coming to explain what's in the bible>>

You are correct in this observation. However, when theological institutions don't believe the Bible but embrace higher-critical methods that devalue Scripture, you get people from the pulpit who deny fundamentals of the faith.

Did you read the story from Canada of a United Church minister who is an atheist? See: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/atheist-united-church-minister-keeps-her-job-heresy-trial-called-off-1.4170525

The Anglicans (Episcopalians) have a similar problem in the USA with ex-bishop John Shelby Spong promoting unorthodox theology that contradicts the Bible. See: http://whosoever.org/v3i3/spong.html

To OzSpen.

Since Peter hasn't replied to this conversation I have to assume one of a few things have happened. Either he:

•Has nothing to add to the discussion, strengthing what I've said to him.

•Has no motivation to continue on the conversation and tires from it. Which regardless if he can add more to it he doesn't due to my continued debate. Or because I've argued a point too much, or have been rude, so that he just doesn't care one way or another.

•or he is considering what was said earlier. Either taking in the things presented to consider on his own, or to start another article later on that will address what he thinks is right, for a different conversation and a fresh start.

Either way, the truth is that he's not responding. If he is still reading conversation, I hope he hears me when I say this.
______________________________
Peter my invitation to discuss any bible interpretation still stands. And that invitation will remain on the table whenever, if ever, you wish to take it. Until then and probabley through that time, I hope you find God, and come to trust Him more. And I do still worry about you. Sorry, but I can't help it.
________________________________

On the other hand, OzSpen, if he doesn't want to talk further, what more can I do? I can offer what I have, in case he or anyone else reads it. But I can't force him or anyone else to turn from their views and philosophy. If you can OzSpen keep Peter and those like him like the ex bishop and the atheist preacher in your prayers. Not just for their sake, but for those who believe them who are Christian, and those who listen to them who are not Christian as well.