HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:22:23 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: DEATH PENALTY- for or against?
              at Sep 28, 92 9:25 pm

Shawn,

I am against the death penality. I see Old Testament Law (Scriptural Support)
supporting the Death Penalty but I am not sure as to its releavance today.

I am mainly against the death penality because it denies the person an
opportunity for salvation that may happen in Jail. We cannot be sure 100%
most of the time that someone is guilty - it is always just beyond
REASONABLE doubt and I am a big enough skeptic in our legal systems to
believe that no earthly system is 100% fool proof.

We have a big problem in Australia regarding early release for prisoners.
I am very much against this. If you get sentanced to say 10 years,
with good behaviour you are likely to be released in less than five.
I believe that 10 years should be 10 years - no remission for good behaviour
because good behaviour should be DEMANDED and bad behaviour punished by
what ever means.

I believe many crimes that people think today are worthy of the death penality
are more of a reflection on OUR society than on the person committing the
crime.. Killing the person is very neatly hiding the sympton without
approaching the cause of the problem.

Sorry for the lack of scripture on this one - but its a personal issue with
me. I dont want to go against God, and in the OT he says that various
things are worthy of DEATH, however I do not believe that many of those reasons
are valid today.. (shock horror).


---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:44:03 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bush/Clinton/Politics
              25 Sep 1992 21:58:23 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Wow! Do I feel much better knowing someone's out there watching how I think.
I'll be sure to stay in line. George Orwell would love this list too.


> I'm a little bored with politics, but since I read Christia partly to refute
>examples of lousy thinking, and since bad arguments appear in politics as much
> as anywhere else, I figured I may as well go ahead.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:41:56 EDT
From:         MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject:      Schwarzkopf Interview

Subject: Schwarzkopf Interview


There was an interview that missed all the major papers.

Babara Walters asked Ret. General H. Norman Schwarzkopf....

Walters: How would you describe President Bush as a commander in chief
         before and during the war?

Gen. Schwarzkopf: On a scale from 1 to 10?

Walters: Yes, a scale from 1 to 10?

Gen. Schwarzkopf: Ten.

Walters: Really!!!!! (I guess scarcastically, Rush was reading.)

Gen. Schwarzkopf: Absolutely. Absolutely. President Bush, in every encounter
                  I ever had with him - as the commander in chief, that's
                  what I'm talking about, from the day I walked in from the
                  National Security Council meeting to Camp David to his
                  encounters coming over during the war - absolutely, was
                  everything that any tehater commander could have ever
                  asked for in a commander in chief.

But it's an election year, guesses Rush, and this has to be kept secret.

I found it interesting. It was news to me, and thought I would pass it
on. Sorry for the politics.

Maks
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:59:56 EST
From:         "PHILLIP A. HALIBURTON" <Z$T@FCCJ.BITNET>
Subject:      SPIRITUAL GIFTS PART 1

DEAR CHRISTIA MEMBERS,

                      IF ANY BODY HAS A COPY OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS PART 1.  I WOUL
D BE MOST DELIGHTED IF YOU WOULD SEND IT TO ME AT Z$T AT FCCJ.BITNET.  I HAVE
PARTS 2, 3, AND 4, BUT NOT 1.

                              YOUR BROTHER IN CHRIST,

                                        PHILLIP A. HALIBURTON
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:29:33 -0400
Reply-To:     ewanco@mlo.dec.com
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Why did Jesus die?

Excerpts from christia: 28-Sep-92 Re: Why Did Jesus Die? Jesse
Carnes@LSUVM.BITNE (1596)

> The "Unpardonable Sin"

> Now, this sin is unpardonable on two possible bases :

> 1) Jesus' blood had only limited power to save
> 2) This sin was never within the purview of Jesus' atoning death.

> I hold to # 2 because number one does no justice to the omnipotence of
> God. If that sin was greater in power than Jesus' power to save, then
> who or WHAT is God around here?

Christ's sacrifice is not applied to our sin until we repent and are
forgiven of that sin.  Christ's sacrifice made the provision of
salvation for all men and for any sin.  But it does us no good if
Christ's sacrifice is not applied to that sin -- that is done through
repentance and forgiveness.  Scripture makes it clear that forgiveness
-- and hence the application of Christ's sacrifice -- is not
unconditional.  Christ said, "And when you stand praying, if you hold
anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may
forgive you your sins.  But if you do not forgive, neither will your
Father who is in heaven forgive your sins." (Mark 11:25f)  Without
repentance, there is no forgiveness, and without forgiveness, our sins
condemn us.

So the issue with the unforgivable sin is this -- the fruits of Christ's
sacrifice are never applied because there is no forgiveness; for that
matter, we can safely say that there is no repentance, either, because
the sin so grieves the Holy Spirit that no grace for repentance is
given.  For we cannot repent unless we are enabled by the grace of God.

Eric
ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:14:41 CDT
From:         "(Brad Kaiser)" <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      re: Purgatory: Justice or Works?

In an earlier post on this (by now, thoroughly tiresome) subject, I
wrote:

>> First, a definition: an "indulgence", in Catholic teaching, is a good
>> work which can be applied to remit, in whole or in part, the suffering
>> of a soul in purgatory.  The "good works" in question are things like,
>> for example, reading the Bible.

That is thoroughly wrong, and could easily be interpreted in a manner
which would be contrary to Catholic teaching.

Recall that purgatory, in Catholic teaching, is a place/state after
death when:

   1) Temporal punishment (i.e., restitution) for sins committed in
      life is fulfilled

   2) De facto repentance occurs for venial (minor) sins unrepented at
      death.  (Unrepented major [mortal] sin at death results in a
      loss of one's heavenly inheritance altogether, cf Heb 10:26-31,
      Rev 21:8, among others.)

My definition of an "indulgence" implies that it somehow accomplishes
or aids the purgatorial repentance for venial sins, which is indeed
part of the "suffering of a soul in purgatory".

This is wrong; an indulgence *only* fulfills the need for restitution
(temporal punishment) as a consequence of sin.  (Ref. available upon
request.)

Therefore, since restitution for sins (which are already forgiven),
while required by Christian justice, has no impact on or relationship
to soteriology, it should be clear that the doctrine of indulgences
is, in no way, a teaching that salvation can be achieved through our
own efforts.  Salvation, repentance, and forgiveness for sin (in the
soteriological sense) are unrelated to indulgences.  They are a
consequence solely of Christ's redeeming act on Calvary.

I regret the error.

In Christ's Love,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

	  Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
	  and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
	  Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
	  and His care is with His elect.
		    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:54:48 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Heaven,
              28 Sep 1992 13:23:13 -0400 from <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>

Eric (and others),

I think that application of the passage in 1Cor.3 to a Christian concept of
purgatory is extremely problematic, especially when the passage is taken in
context.  Paul states clearly to the Corinthians that they are God's
building, and that he and Apollos are God's fellow workers, i.e., Christian
leaders participating in building a local church.  Paul lays the foundation,
i.e., the preaching of the Gospel, and other leaders build the rest of the
church.  Without the foundation of the Gospel, there can be no church.  Some
leaders build well, using gold, silver, or precious stones, while other
leaders build poorly, using wood, hay, or straw.  When the church passes
through testing, the work of those leaders who built the church is tested.
Either the church will stand, if it was built out of proper materials, or
it will be destroyed, if it was built out of shoddy materials.  In both
cases, the foundation remains the same.  This passage refers to corporate
growth and testing, not to individual growth and testing.

You may have many other arguments for the existence of purgatory, but
I think that the use of this passage is inappropriate.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:46:56 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Why Did Jesus Die?
              29 Sep 1992 13:18:54 -0700 from <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>

Dear Mark ;

Question : "If the wages of sin is death and Christians die like other
humans do, are Christians PAYING for their sins or even Adam's sin STILL?"

How do Christians die in light of that verse in Romans 3?


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:24:03 CDT
From:         Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: DEATH PENALTY- for or against?

Ian you stated:

> Sorry for the lack of scripture on this one - but its a personal issue with
  me. I dont want to go against God, and in the OT he says that various
  things are worthy of DEATH, however I do not believe that many of those reason
  are valid today.. (shock horror).<

      If the death penalty was enforce today, the way it was in the
      OT times, do you think we would have as much crime and adultery   -------
      today?                                                            .com


   Yvette Traylor     "We are His people and the sheep of his pasture."
   Dallas County Community College District             Psalm 100:3
   Computer Programmer/Analyst from Dallas - Texas
"I know worse things about myself that you will ever say about me." Anon
From: AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (Angela Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Lost tribes of Israel
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:55:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757

I heard from someone that there is a religion that thought something to
the effect that the lost tribes of Israel ended up in England and that Jesus
was British?  He couldn't remember for sure if that's exactly what it was
like, though.  Does anyone know of a religion similar to this?  Since this
isn't exactly a topic about Christianity, a private reply would be greatly
appreciated.  I'd ask on Belief-l, but I'm not on there, and I already get
too much mail!  :)

Thanks for your help!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:39:05 -0500
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      James

Dear Dan;

>I guess my answer will be a bit of an essay, too.  I cannot abide multiple
>choice questions.

>Paul makes it very clear in Galatians 3 and 4 that our standing with God
>comes through faith, or belief.  (They are the same word, and are
>interchangable in every, read each and every, occasion in the New
>Testamant.)

>He also makes it clear in many places that that fith, or belief, is a gift
>of God, not something we develop.  James, when he says that belief is not
>enough, speaks error.

[stuff deleted ...]

Maybe Paul is the one in error, and James is right.  (I don't really believe
that.  But if we can throw out the parts that we don't agree with then we
will be able to "prove" anything from the Bible.)  It does seem to me that
Calvinists put an inordinate amount of faith in Romans 9-10.
(And I don't really believe you can make much of a case
for it there, either.)

Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:59:31 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Why Did Jesus Die?
              24 Sep 1992 18:37:22 -0700 from <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>

Dear Mark Drake ;

The wages of sin is surely death ... granted.

Interestingly enough, Jesus gave up His life voluntarily ... so, barring
His destiny to be a sin substitute, He did not HAVE to die.
Now, keeping in mind that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of
the world to die as a sin substitute, let's remember that although
inherently without sin, Jesus was reckoned as sinful in myriads of
substitutes whose sins were IMPUTED to His account on the cross.
This means that Jesus was credidted with the sins of all for whom He
died and so their GUILT went with it.  Therefore, He was punished for
the imputed sins of His substitutes and thereby PROPITIATED the wrath
of the Father toward those whose sins were imputed to Jesus.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:08:39 CDT
From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Explanation on Right Standing

Dear All on Christia ;

As to the multiple-choice question, Faith in Christ is a RESULT of being
Regenerated as well as being indwelt by God's Spirit.
Now, Faith in Christ IS the MEANS by which we come into the Kingdom.
But God ALWAYS demanded (and STILL does) perfect obedience, in that NO
sin may be in His presence.  He demands perfect righteousness, and our
problem is being ABLE to render that.
This impossibility compels usto look to Christ as both our SIN
SUBSTITUTE and IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.
His Perfect Life and Perfect Saving Work on the cross is the Gospel.


Jesse Irwin Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:48:29 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      a typo

In an earlier posting, I referred to an exchange between Lora
and Louie. That should have been "Lauren [Arango] and Louie."
My apologies to anyone misled, confused, or distressed.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: males versus females and God
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:06:59 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

But every one has a feminine soul, her name is Sue Kay (she must be a
Southerner).  We also all have a New Ma' as Christ is being formed in her.
We are to be His mother, sister, and brother too.
                                                   maranatha, zane.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Confused Catholicism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:20:37 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92093010391621@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Any human action is ineffectual toward sins' forgiveness.
>If it were effectual, then WHY did Christ come to earth ... to be a mere
>good example for all of us??

   Does that mean that the human action of repentance is ineffectual?
Sure, we are forgiven through God's grace, but it's not true that we
need do nothing on our part.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:58:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Purgatory: Justice or Works?

I was directly addressed here, so I will respond once more, but I will
not take this discussion any further on the list.

In a message of Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:54:29 GMT
Received on Thu,  1 Oct 92 03:43 N
(Steve Creps) <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU> wrote:

> >I won't arrive there impure, because I have washed my garments in the
> >blood of the Lamb! And I won't arrive there unholy, because I have been
> >sanctified through the Spirit by water - not through purgatory:
>
>    Are you saying that you haven't sinned since that time???

No I am not. The Word says:

JO1 1:8  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
 the truth is not in us.

But we are not only forgiven, but also  * cleansed *  by confession (to
God a priest be present or not):

JO1 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive
 us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

And remember another verse from the same epistle:

JO1 3:6  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth
 hath not seen him, neither known him.

So what is sinless and holy seems to be our new man/woman and that which
sins seems to be our old nature.

> What
> Eric and I are saying is that there is still a tendancy to sin even
> after Baptism.  I don't think there is anyone here who will deny that.

I don't.

> And I think everyone will agree that this tendency is there for most
> people at death.

I'd say: for all!

> Well then, do people enter Heaven with this tendency
> to sin?  If yes, then why does Scripture say no unclean thing shall
> enter Heaven?  If no, then where is this tendency to sin removed?

The old nature will not enter heaven, but the new creature will! I think
that this happens in the resurrection:

CO1 15:42  So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
 corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
CO1 15:43  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is
 sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
CO1 15:44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
 body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Paul speaks of this change as being quick, not over a long period of
time:

CO1 15:51  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep,
 but we shall all be changed,
CO1 15:52  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
 trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
 incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

One last remark: I don't think that your equating "unclean" with
"tendency to sin" is justified. I am clean because I have been washed by
the Blood of the Lamb (the terminology 'covered' may have been
misleading. The sins were in a sense covered in the OT, but they are
washed away in the NT), but I still have a tendency to sin. We may not
agree here, but I just wanted to make that clear.

Wolfgang <><
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: timk@world.std.com (Tim King)
Subject: Re: Watching How We Think (was Politics)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:54:09 GMT

I previously wrote of various things concerning the christian faith:

> No one seems to know what they are or even how to find out...

> Is this true?

No, it isn't true.  Often I do see very legitimately edifying posts on
christia.  I also hear quite a few good statements from everyday christians
like myself.  But sometimes I wonder whether some people really care about
their faith, their relationship with God, and their relationship with each
other...  Maybe I'm just pessimistic.  Oh well... shoot me! :-)

Bye for now...  Gone to slither back into my cave...
-TimK
-- 
Tim King                  |  Some of us favor logic in making decisions.
24 Myrtle Street          |  Some, emotions.  I, personally, get very    |\
Dedham, MA 02026          |  emotional about faulty logic! :-)           | >
timk@world.std.com        |                                             <>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:47:42 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Lordship Salvation

Excerpts from christia: 1-Oct-92 Re: Lordship Salvation Tom
Brewer@LSUVM.BITNET (1351)

> Can there be any other kind of salvation than Lordship salvation?

Well, there's salvation by grace alone, and there's salvation by faith
alone.  It is my understanding that "Lordship Salvation" implies that in
order to be saved, you must make Jesus Lord of your life.  This is in
contrast with those who say that all you need to be saved is faith, and
that any further requirement, including making Jesus Lord of your life,
is a salvation by works gospel.

It would seem to me that you yourself would disagree with Lordship salvation.

> I'm sure more details will follow, but for quick starters, get a copy of
> John MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" and you will get a pretty
> good idea of what it's about.

I've seen the book, been interested in checking it out but never did.
Maybe I will.

> Super simple version/understanding = 2 camps
>      Camp 1 says only need Jesus as Saviour, not Lord
>      Camp 2 says need Jesus as Lord and Saviour--no separation
>      Camp 1 says Lordship means works
>      Camp 2 says Jesus is Lord of all His people

Well, one can acknowledge Jesus as savior without fully submitting to
his Lordship, i.e., making him first in your life and giving him control
over your life.  I'm sure both camps agree that Jesus is Lord of all His
people, the question is whether salvation requires giving Jesus Lordship
over one's life.  Or am I misunderstanding the Lordship position?

Actually there is a book on the subject, maybe I'll look that up.  CBD
is nearby, though I just missed a warehouse sale.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:59:52 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Re>Heaven, etc.

Excerpts from christia: 30-Sep-92 Re>Heaven, etc. Leo W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU (2384)

> Eric also wrote: "anyone who has saving faith in Christ will naturally do what
> God asks"

> How about, "would naturally WANT to do what God asks," as Paul relates in
> Romans 7:14-25.

Agreed!

Excellent post, Leo.  Thank you.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU