HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:58:41 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         "(Brad Kaiser)" <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Purgatory: Justice or Works?
              29 Sep 1992 12:08:08 CDT <9209291716.AA25383@motgate.mot.com>

Tom,

A question for you, for a change.  You write:

>> If this is not works, then I'm, err uh, I'm ahhh.....

I realized something odd just now.  You refer to "a gospel of works"
(which you condemn), and "works" (which you seem to be disparaging).
I've never heard you use the term "salvation by works" or "salvation
by works alone" or even "works righteousness".

I'm unclear whether your objection to works is the same as that of the
Catholic Church, namely: we cannot be saved apart from Jesus Christ,
so relying entirely on our own works, without Christ's grace, is
useless for salvation.

Here's my question for you:

    What is the place of good works in the life of the
    justified Christian believer, in your view?

Awaiting your reply, I remain

Your brother in Christ,

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]
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 02:40:11 GMT

Wow!  Darren and I are starting to agree!  This is scary! :-) :-) :-)

He says,

> In particular, I think Christians should be aware that we are ALWAYS being
> watched, in everything we do, all the time...
> ... We are also watched by those who don't like us, and who are actively
> searching for evidence that Christians are mindless religious people who
> believe without thinking.

This is all too true.  I think it's important to know what we believe and
why.  It's important to promptly admit when one of our theological
preferences isn't fully supported by scripture and to not divide over it.
It's also important to know when scripture unequivically agrees with our
theology.

   But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give
   a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in
   you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they
   defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ
   may be ashamed.  (1 Peter 3:15-16)


>In Usenet's talk.religion.misc...

There are anti-christian threads in other newsgroups, too...  I'm
beginning to think that any group aimed at religion of any kind spends
more time shooting down christianity than anything else! :-)


There are good reasons to be a christian.  There are good reasons to
believe in and listen to God.  There are good reasons to hold to christian
values.  And there are things in christianity that are blatantly
unchristian!  No one seems to know what they are or even how to find
out...

Is this true?
-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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:27:39 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: IS GOD EVIL?

Alot of people think that to repent means to be ashamed of or to be sorry for
but repent means to "turn away from".   God was angry but he turned away from
his anger due to the prayers of ....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:06:21 CDT
From:         jesse carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Security of salvation?

Dear All ;

Someone said to Gareth that you could 'throw away' your Salvation, albeit
you could not 'LOSE' the same.
Without accusing of equivocation, let's say again concerning Jesus' words in
John 6:38-40 that if His words contain  any veracity -- and they do -- then
HOW in the world do we believe the aforementioned opinion in light of " ...
it is my Father's will that I should lose NONE of all whom He has given me"
AND from John 10 " ... I give them ETERNAL life and they shall NEVER die"?
Whose opinion counts? Jesus' or ours? Hmmm???

My gosh, when are we going to wake up to what REALLY occurred at the Cross!
We, who are being saved, gave HIM our sins and He gave to us HIS Righteousness.
Now, I do not believe in being pugnacious, but GOOD HEAVENS what sort of
Gospel are we propagatingif Jesus' sin-substitutees can have more power to
nullify his Blood's saving power than HIS power to KEEP us?


Did Jesus REALLY say that " ... and they shall NEVER DIE."?
Well, did He?


"Exegetically" irritated to the point of distraction ;

Jesse Irwin Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:24:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Purgatory: Justice or Works?

In a message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:36:02 -0400
Received on Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:41 N
Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> wrote:

> NO -- you obviously are totally missing the point.  _NOTHING_ is being
> added to the atonement of Jesus Christ.  Purgatory has nothing to do
> with soteriology!  It has to do with SANCTIFICATION.

Let's think about a Christian who dies (saved by the blood of Jesus).
Let's suppose that he wouldn't enter purgatory. Would he be granted
access into heaven?

If yes - then there is no need for purgatory, is there?
If no - then Christ's work obviously is not enough!

I think that the main problem here is the meaning and the scope of the
term "salvation". I always understood it in a way similar to "Shalom"
which is not only "peace", but an all-encompassing well-being.
Similarly I thought that salvation was a complete, all-encompassing
redemption from all of our sins  * and *  the consequences. Could,
maybe, Lon elaborate on the Hebrew concept of salvation and maybe some
of you Greek scholars about the Greek concept behind the appropriate
term(s)? Isn't salvation often compared to the purchase of a slave? We
are bought by Christ who sets us free. A slave does not have to add
anything to the price he was bought with.

> Again, and again, I will point out:  Scripture makes it clear that
> though we are forgiven of our sins, we must STILL suffer for them.

Maybe I missed your references for that. If so would you please send
them to me privately? If you didn't name them yet, could you please do
so? I mean the passages that make it  * clear *.

> We
> reap what we sow, we will be repaid according to our works, forgiveness
> or no!

But this does not require purgatory! A simple reward system will do.

> David was forgiven by God, but his son still died.  Paul said
> that he fills up in his own flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of
> Christ.

O.K. granted that this is related to what we are talking about: these
sufferings" took place while the persons were still living, not after
their death!

Wolfgang <><
From: NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET (Tom Brewer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Watching How We Think (was Politics)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:51:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              28 Sep 1992 17:08:59 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Darren:

I understand where you're coming from. Here's my "thinking" on the subject.
What you are calling "Christian," I call COMMERCIAL RELIGION.

There will always be hypocrites, always have been. We're called to be faithful
to what we know.

I often say the following about obnoxious, self-proclaimed prophets, and self-
annointed preachers who shout abuse at individuals on the street or on a TV
screen:

      The Bible says men will be saved by the foolishness of preaching, NOT
      by the foolishness of the preacher.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe that God can save men inspite of the
foolishness of some "preachers." But I do not sanction/excuse their lack of
sharing truth in love to creatures created in the image of God.

And last of all, I'm not afraid of you watching how I think. I'm constantly
trying to fine tune my thinking. I pray often that God will continue to
renew my mind with the mind of Christ. If you see me caught up in wrong
thinking, I'll expect you to call me on it. I believe sin begins with wrong
thinking--just look at Adam and Eve's thoughts.

Of course, I might not always agree with you :-)

Tom Brewer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:16:46 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Seeking a Catholic Perspective

More or less, Matt.

Shalom,
Memo.
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 15:40:06 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Lordship Salvation

Let's see if I can start perhaps a more positive conversation.

I am interested in hearing details about the "Lordship Salvation"
movement.  I've heard bit and pieces of it, and it seems plain what it
means from the title, but I suspect that, as often happens, there is
more to it than meets the eye.  Apparently in some circles, it is
controversial.  Naturally such an idea is abhorrent to diehard sola fide
proponents and predestinationists, but I'd like to find out exactly what
the controversy is about, and I'm curious to know more about it.  Can
anyone give any details?

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:45:39 CDT
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         MICHELE LOFTON <MLOFTON@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      RE:JOB OPENING

Would you feel the same way if a Catholic wanted a job teaching to
Protestants?

Michele Lofton <MLOFTON@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:43:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Finney and other possible "men of God."

I fully agree that we should be very careful in any condemnation of men of
God, but what determines a man of God?  Just because a person sets
themselves up as a precher and goes around conducting pseudo revivals does
not mark them as a person of God's choosing.  I freely condemn Finney for
he didn't display anything that I would call divine favor.  Just because a
revival accompanies a man does not mean that man is in God's favor at all.
Revival is from the Spirit, not a man.  In fact, Finney denied the work of
the Spirit which Jesus clearly states is the unpardonable sin.

We're not talking about personality quirks here, we're talking about a man
who dismissed a great deal of the gospel and one who taught that a person
could be fully perfect by simply following the laws of the universe.

Your caution is well taken, though.  I will take it to heart.

Dan Graham
From: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu (Noel Estabrook)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: males vs females and God
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:53:47 GMT
Reply-To: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook)
Organization: Michigan State University

Just another thought on this question.  It's late at night and I don't 
really have the time to look it up, but it seems to me that the Greek
word used to convey which type of love we are to have for Jesus (Philos,
Eros, Agape) is relevant here.  My guess is that most (if not all) of 
the references in the NT to us loving God or Jesus are most likely
Agape.  Anybody with more knowledge on this?  It would seem that this 
would make any kind of "sexual" relationship moot.


--
Noel Estabrook          |       If somebody publishes an article in a really
noel@crs.cl.msu.edu   __|__	obscure research journal and nobody reads it,
Educational Technology  |	does it really exist?  - IgNobel Prizes
Michigan State Univ.    |				Romans 12:2
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: God's care of us individually
Summary: Computing models for individual divine providence
Keywords: parallel processing, real-time processing, divine providence
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:35:20 GMT

(Contributed to the CHRISTIA BITNET list server and to the
soc.religion.christian newsgroup)

Here are a couple of ideas from computing that I find useful in
thinking about the objection that God has more important things
to do than to personally monitor the actions, thoughts, prayers,
sins, etc., of every person.
 
1.   Parallel processing model:  given a massively parallel
     computing environment, one might consider handling a
     molecular dynamics simulation by spawning (forking, if the
     UN*X gurus prefer) multiple processes, one for each atom in
     the simulation.  Similarly we might thinking of the divine
     subprocesses spawned to deal with each individual being ---
     this reminds me a bit of the Roman Catholic doctrine of
     guardian angels, whose feast was just celebrated 2 October.
     [Lest someone accuse me of spreading unscriptural doctrine
     I'll include Matthew 18:10 (RSV):  "See that you do not
     despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in
     heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who
     is in heaven."]
 
2.   Non-real-time model:  the common Christian understanding
     says that God stands outside of time.  That means that, to
     God, events in our time do not require action in (God's)
     real-time.  So even if God is a uni-processor he's got
     plenty of "time" to deal with each individual --- running
     the universe is not a real-time problem for God.
 
Disclaimer --- I am not suggesting that God is a computer,
whether massively parallel or uniprocessor, any more than the
author of a fairly popular inspirational verse intended to
suggest that Jesus leaves visible footprints in the sand as he
accompanies each of us through life.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
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 13:23:13 -0400
Reply-To:     ewanco@mlo.dec.com
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Heaven,

Excerpts from christia: 28-Sep-92 Re: Heaven, Tom Brewer@LSUVM.BITNET (551)

> The only way one is purified is by the work of Christ, not by being
> cooked in a low intensity broiler. John writes in his first epistle that
> when we confess our sins, God is faithful, not only to forgive us, but
> to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness. That means we are cleansed,
> purified, etc. No purgatory involved.

Does God just wave a magic wand and make us pure?  If so, why do we
still have an attachment to sin?  Is sanctification not a process, and a
difficult one at that? When you ask for forgiveness, do you instantly
receive freedom from a desire to sin?  Do you not rebel against God at
times?  Do you have a perfect hatred for sin and a perfect love for God?
 If not, then you are not pure.  God cleanses us and purifies us, but
the promise makes no mention of when or how.  Certainly we are cleansed
in a juridical sense; we no longer are condemned.  But the effects and
symptoms of sin remain.  The war is one, but the battle is not yet over.
 Again I would quote 1 Cor 3:12.  All of our works will be subject to
fire; the wood, hay, and straw will be burnt up, but the gold and
precious stones will remain.  This is purification, and it isn't God
waving his hand over us and making the wood, hay, and straw instantly
disappear.

Purgatory is nothing more than an extension of the suffering here on
earth that makes us strong.  Scripture makes it clear that God's
strength is made perfect through suffering, and that as Christians we
are definitely going to suffer.  Scripture says that this suffering is
good.  Anyone who does not believe that suffering is a part of the
Christian life is deceived.

Examine yourself.  Do you really think that you are perfected yet?  Do
you not grow through pain and suffering?  Does God not use pain and
suffering to strengthen you and conform you to His image?  Does not your
will still occasionally rebel against God?  Yet you would suggest that
being purified is accomplished merely by confessing our sins.  I must be
missing something, but though I confess my sins with all my heart, I am
still attached to sin, I still am attracted to the passions of the
flesh, I still think impure thoughts, and I still do not follow the path
of life without stumbling.  If you can tell me a way of instantaneously
conforming myself entirely to the image of God, of freeing myself from
all attachment to sin, and of never experiencing the passions of the
flesh again, then tell me, I'd like to hear it.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:35:28 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Prayer for the Dead

Over the past several days, I have made several posts on the Jewish
practice of praying for the dead.  Much of what I posted stated that the
Jewish practice had to do primarily with remembering the dead before God
and not with releasing them from a purgatory-like condition.  I have done
a bit of additional research on this, and found that my comments are correct
so far as orthodox Jewish theology is concerned; however, in the Jewish
folk tradition, there is the idea that saying the mourner's kaddish for a
departed relative somehow frees them from some sort of pain.  As I said,
this is not part of classical or orthodox Jewish theology, and is more of
a folk tradition or superstition, but the idea of praying for the dead to
reduce their suffering is not totally foreign to Jewish thought.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:17:59 EST
From:         "PHILLIP A. HALIBURTON" <Z$T@FCCJ.BITNET>
Subject:      PRAYER REQUEST

DEAR CHRISTIA MEMBERS,

                      THANKS ALOT FOR ALL YOUR PRAYERS ON MY CHURCHES TRIP.  I
ASURE YOU THAT GOD DOES HERE THEM.

               THE REASON FOR THIS PRAYER REQUEST IS THAT I LOST MY JOB WORKING
I THE COMPUTER LAB AT FCCJ'S SOUTH CAMPUS AS A LAB ASSISTANT.  WELL ONE OF MY
TEACHERS IS THE HEAD COORNATOR OVER ALL THE CAMPUS COORNATORS.  WELL ANYWAY SHE
 IS TRYING TO GET ME A JOB AT THE DOWNTOWN CAMPUS COMPUTER LAB.  PLEASE PRAY
THAT THIS DOES HAPPEN.  THANK YOU......

                                      YOUR LOVING BROTHER IN CHRIST,

                                   PHILLIP A. HALIBURTON
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: heaven
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:21:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct6.170620.5959@ee.ryerson.ca> iain@ee.ryerson.ca (Iain Campbell) writes:

>>Lets get carried away once in a while or even more often.  I have heard
>>that God likes it.  smile
>
>AMEN!!!!HALLELUJAH!!!!PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>It's the JOY of the LORD that is our strength, and God doesn't just
>like it, it is His instrumeent to empower us ... 

I want to say, first off, that I don't want this to sound like a flame.  I
think the enthusiastic, emotional "yahoo" you express is a wonderful thing
that happens sometimes in our lives, and that God does indeed like it and
smiles upon us in it.  

But I _don't_ think that that's what the Bible is talking about when it
says the joy of the Lord is our strength.  And I find, as I walk farther
along this pilgrim path, that the school of thought that promotes
tremendous emotional highs and enthusiasm is, at best, missing the boat
and at worst, distorting scripture.  

In my experience (for what it's worth; I'd also like to hear others'
perspectives), the joy of the Lord that imparts strength is _not_
wahoo-happiness but more of a deep undercurrent that tends to grow rather
than diminish during and because of times of profound suffering.  I've
often found it accompanied by sadness and peace.  It's a sense of God's
character and a growing awareness of his tremendous love and mercy, which
often comes through most in times of suffering and ordeals.  It's also a
sense of his power in my life and in the life of this world, past,
present, and future.  

It's many, many things; I'd be interested in what other brothers and
sisters have found to be true about the joy of the Lord and what it means
to rejoice in the Lord.  

As I say, I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here.  Those times of
exuberant happiness and celebration are marvelous, often God-ordained, and
absolutely wonderful.  But the danger I see is when people start mistaking
that emotional high with the strength of our faith and whipping themselves
up to achieve it.  

I've experienced that deep, empowering joy in many different situations,
including:  revivals, song-fests, times of profound grieving and crying,
prayer, being with someone I loved, listening to a sermon, walking through
the streets of downtown Philadelphia, quiet meditation, scripture reading,
looking out my window, crying out to God in distress, loneliness ...

What about you?



-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia