Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:23:21 MST
From:         Madge McBurney <ISPMOM@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Various & sundry
              18 Nov 1992 09:09:00 MST from <SKLEPZI@SSB1.SAFF.UTAH.EDU>

I'm posting Steven's message again so that those on bit.listserv.christia
will be able to read this too. (Steven is still have trouble getting his
mail to appear on the different news services).

Christia co-owner   Bitnet:   ispmom@asuacad
Madge McBurney      Internet: ispmom@asuvm.inre.asu.edu
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I'll try to cover a few posts with this reply.

From: Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
     However, because of our beliefs we are likely to disagree on some
     interpretations of the Gospel or the ways of the church.  I expect,
     therefore some vigorous debates to happen in this forum.  I'd be
     somewhat worried if we all agreed all the time - we'd sound brain
     washed.  In fact, by lively debate I often learn more about my faith.
     Which is why I signed on for this.
     Moreover, because we follow Christ, we are bound to be controversial in
     the world's eyes.  After all, He was ! So I can see way the word
     'polemic' was used by (was it) Jesse. (Appologies for only being vague
     on the who.)

Carol has hit upon one of the chief reasons that Christia is not an edited
list.  Madge and I have no desire for Christia to sound like us.  I also have
no problem with discussions over disagreements and interpretations, in fact,
I welcome them.  It helps me to be able to better relate to others that see
things different than I do.  We can disagree on the non-essentials, no doubt.
We can also have vigorous debates - however, to me this implies that both
sides are listening.  And if we ever become non-controversial in the world's
eyes I will be the first one off this list.

From: Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
     I have a query for you, but I need your E-mail address.

sklepzi@ssb1.saff.utah.edu
Please note: I receive anywhere from 150 to 400+ messages a day, not just
from this list but from other lists and personal mail (about 50+ personal).
Depending on what crisis hits here during the day I run from 0 to 5 days
behind in personal mail.

From: Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
     "How important is TRUTH?

Who's truth?  Your's?  Mine?  Calvin's?  Catholic?  LDS?
Let me answer that for you - Jesus Christ's.

     Is it more important than mere opinions, or is it simply 'equal'?

The truth of Jesus Christ is all important to me.  Calvin was mightily used
by God - but know what?  Calvin was also a man.  Luther was used by God but
he also was a man.  Apollos was used by God but...
There is something to be learned from each of these men - as well as a
multitude of others.  But, because of their humanity, they all made mistakes
as well.  I personally try to learn what I can from all these people while
filtering it all through God's filter - that's right - the Bible.

     When we deal with, say, the Gospel, just HOW important is that matter
     ... especially in light of Heaven versus Hell?
     Do we take all of this lightly?

Perhaps you could relate to me your definition of the word "Gospel".  Perhaps
you've heard this catchy little saying: "In the essentials - unity; in the
non-essentials - liberty; in all things Christ."  Personally, I like it.

I take my walk with and representation of Jesus Christ deadly serious.

From: Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
     Again, after a post by someone on this list, it seems apparent that the
     idea of "Polemics" is either a bit uncertain, or equivocated on by some.
     Simply put, the idea of discussing something in a polemical style is to
     give a logical "point-by-point" format, especially in light of
     attempting to indicate error on the part of a person(s)who hold another
     view.  Now, this is not NECESSARILY a pugnacious affair, for one can
     implement a format of polemics, without resorting to "Argumentum ad
     Homenim" (arguments against the individual, themselves) or "argumentum
     ad Bacculum" (personal attacks where aggressive language or actual
     threats are employed).

It seems to me that your definition of polemic is somewhat different from the
dictionary definition.

     I know that one of the list owners is concerned, ostensibly, but let's
     DEFINE this thing CLEARLY.

Yes I am concerned.  I don't understand your usage of "ostensibly" here,
perhaps you meant "apparently" ?

     God   N E V E R    calls us to UNITY, apart from Truth.  If we ditch
     Truth, then we are no better than JW's, Mormons, or Moslems.
     As far as Arguments ... NOT Arguing ... are concerned, Apollos of
     Biblical fame employed this style of dialogue.  What we want is TRUTH
     proclaimed and done so logically and with taste.

Perhaps you could point out which book in the Bible was written by Apollos.
That way I could study it more closely and integrate his style as well.
Until then I'll just use the examples that I already see in the Bible.

From: Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
     Could you define "spirit led" for me please, sir?
     For you see, even the great Christian polemicist, Apollos, who traveled
     with Paul, employed skilled, Biblical polemics against the heresies of
     many apostate Jews.

Seems to me that Jesus Christ called the Pharisees white washed tombs and
such.  He also gently taught the apostles at times, other times he was very
straight forward with them ("get behind me satan").  Do you see the
difference?  Jesus spoke to people in the manner and tone that He knew would
be effective for them.  He didn't speak to the Samaritan woman the same way
He spoke to the crowd wanting to trap Him with the adulterous woman.

Well, I don't claim to be Jesus.  But I hope that I am open enough to the
Holy Spirit to accept a little guidance from Him in my relations with others.
When missionaries (LDS & JW) used to come to my house I was never able to
address any group the same as another group.  Yet I think I was able to say
something that had an affect on them.  I wasn't rude to them yet I spoke the
truth to them.  I invited them back (alas, none came back - I really don't
know why).  One time I was led to boldly proclaim Christ and invite them to
bring their questions and doubts about Christ to me and I'd try to answer
them.  Another time I was led to go over the doctrine of the Trinity with a
couple of JW women.  Each time (I believe) God was leading me to speak to
these people the things that would be effective with them.  I've yet to find
out if I was effective - someday I believe I will.  But I tried to listen to
God instead of just telling them to go away.  Is this making any sense to
anyone?  Seems to me I'm rambling a bit...

     Being "polemic" is NOT the same as being "pugnacious."  Highly skilled
     use of the Scriptures, in a logical fashion, is not pugnacious.  So
     let's not be nebulous on this matter.  We are "big" boys and girls, and
     if we are Christians at all, then we should know HOW we need to treat
     one another.

I personally don't think that "skilled use of the Scriptures" is polemic
either - at least as polemic has been defined in my dictionary.

I am a "big" boy, both in Christian "age" and physical size.  However,
someone is being saved daily (we had about 7 in our church this last sunday,
btw).  These people are "babes".  It doesn't matter how old physically they
are.  I personally feel a measure of responsibility to not cause one of these
little ones to stumble.  I need to "feed" them and help them grow to be sure,
but I need to be careful that in my zeal for the truth I don't step on them
and cause them to stumble.

From: Lonnie Schubert <S096556@UMRVMA.BITNET>
     I assert that polemic is inappropriate for any Christian.
     We are commanded to walk in love and, as much as is within us,
     to live peaceably with all men.
     I also assert that polemic is particularly inappropriate to this
     listserve.  Let us speak the truth *IN LOVE*.

Welcome back Lonnie, I've missed you.  I hope you will get back into things
around here.  Your words speak volumes.

I've babbled long enough - also I notice that I've received more mail...

"...it is false piety to preserve peace at the expense of truth.  It is also
false zeal to preserve truth at the expense of charity." - Blaise Pascal

Steven Klepzig (sklepzi@ssb1.saff.utah.edu)
Co-owner - Practical Christian Living (christia@asuacad)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU