HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: d246@UNI05.LARC.NASA.GOV ((Braden Glen))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: World Vision
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:27:12 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.


  I know most of you are familiar with World Vision. I been sponsoring a child
in Kenya since 1988. I have and Aunt and Uncle who have been sponsoring
children since they married +40 years ago, cycling through, as the children
grow up, and keeping in touch with formal sponsored children. World Vision
is an excellent organization, with an excellent repetition. My wife and I
currently send $25.00 a month. We would like to sponsor a second child but we
are financially unable to. Perhaps one of you have been thinking of doing this.
If so, their number is 1 800 777-5777.
  They (World Vision) did not asked me to do this, nor are they aware that I am
posting this. My reasoning is that since I cannot afford a second child, one of
you might be able to. So, direct flames to me and not them!

In His Love
Glen

 Glen A Braden                           D246@uni05.larc.nasa.gov
 System Analyst                          wk 804 865-9387
 UNISYS                                  hm 804 851-6530

 'By and by when I look at His face, beautiful face, tear stained face,
    By and by when I look at His face, I'll wish I've given him more...'
                                              -Hymn, probably mis-quoted
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:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:14:33 -0500
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      That P' word again

Dear Bill;

>In article <01GPQUMQFZIA000EPC@LIFE.UAMS.EDU> BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU writes:
>>Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:42:31 -0500
>>From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU

>>Now the Bible is pretty explicit about the responsiblity of Christians to
>>evange
>>   lize.
>>Jesus, for example, gave a direct order to the Apostles to go into the world
>>and
>>    preach
>>the Gospel.
>>
>>This brings me to another objection that I have to TULIP calvinism.
>>Evangelism
>>   is
>>a meaningless exercise if one accepts it.  As I understand it TULIP teaches
>that
>>
>>salvation or damnation has been a "done deal" from at least as far back as the
>>creation of the world.  If so then evangelism doesn't matter as God is going
>>to
>>save who he's going to save and damn who he's going to damn and all the
>>witnessi
>>   ng,
>>preaching, and listening to the Gospel in the world can't do a thing about it.
>>
>And if you say we do it because God demands it I will say that God, being a
>>God
>>>   of logic,
>>cannot demand that we do illogical things.  (I use 'cannot demand' in the
>>sense
>>   of it
>>being impossible for him to do so.)

>After being away from the posts for awhile, I was surprised to find this
>topic still floating in my newsreader.  Brian, the problem I have with that
>part of your post quoted above is it puts logic above obedience.  I agree
>with you, that your statement is logical, as far as it goes.  But it just
>looks at part of the evidence.  The part it omits is that God commands us to
>preach the gospel to bring about the conversion of sinners.

>Now, do we put logic first, or obedience first?  If we put obedience first,
>we find that we must preach the gospel.  And then we will see that the elect
>are the ones who come to salvation by means of the preaching.  This is also
>logical:  God foreordains the means, as well as the ends.  He foreordains
>both who will come to Christ, and how they will come.  If we start and stop
>with logic, we will not obey, but if we do not obey, we have only the
>promise of John 3:36:  "He who believes in the Son has eternal life;  but he
>who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on
>him."

It is inefficient to foreordain preaching as the means, if the ends have
already been accomplished.  God is efficient. I think arminianism
is more logical here than Calvinism because it teaches that
people can make a real decision about coming to God when they come to
know about Christ through the preaching of the Gospel.  (And I'm not
suggesting that man bootstraps himself into heaven, etc. ...)

Personally, I'll take the more logical of two competing theories
any day.


Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:28:15 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Security of Salvation?
              13 Oct 1992 01:46:29 GMT from <gjm11@CUS.CAM.AC.UK>

Replying to Gareth 's post, all that I assert is that the Bible is
SUFFICIENT inherently for us to draw correct conclusions in nebulous
areas.
Either it is or it is NOT.  So, which will it be Gareth.
This is the REAL question here  :  "Is the Bible sufficient within itself
for Christians of the true calabre to arrive at correctly interpreted Truth?"
Either it is or it is not and I assert the former.
Now, if the Word of God was not intended to be unfathomable for true
Christians, at least, then with good working exegesis, based upon sound
hermeneutical principles, we should arrive at correct interpretations.
There is no equivocation on this issue ... for it is one of those "Either --
Or" scenarios.

Now, I can understand disagreements on this if a person assumes that the
Word of God is insufficient in and of itself.
But, that either means God cannot clearly communicate with us or He has
no intention of doing so, and what true believer would espouse this?


Exegetically yours ;

Jesse Carnes
From: ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: celibacy
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:24:57 GMT
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

While I was looking that up for Jeff, I found the following:

1 Cor 7:1 NIV: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a
man not to marry." (Or "It is good for a man not ot have sexual
relations with a woman.")  "I wish that all men were as I am." And,
7:28: "But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I
want to spare you this."  7:38, "So then, he who marries the virgin does
right, but he who does not marry her does even better."

Eric
From: GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL (DRCV06::GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: A word to the hate mail watchers.
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:48:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

I'm not much for disclaimers, but this post needs one.

The opinions expressed hereinafter are exclusively those of the writer and
in no way reflect the opinions, standards or policies of my employer or my
employer's customers.

Christia is a discussion group of the greatest value.  Here, we are honest
with each other and we learn from each other.  This honesty and learning
often takes the form of heated discussion.  We are humans and being so,
cannot divorce our emotions from our intellects.  This will, sometimes,
result in emotional outbursts and emotionally charged postings to the list.
 We accept these as part of our lives and love each other no less for them.

For you, the anonymous reader of email list logs who attempts to find
things that are of a hateful nature, you are welcome to participate with
us if you would join in the spirit of our list.  The very idea that you, or
anyone would search our list logs trying to find things that are not
"politically correct" is reprehensible.  There is no hate on Christia.  So
far as I have seen, there has not been any, nor is there likely to be any.

If you do not have the stomach for honest, frank and meaningful
discussions, you should not read the list logs.

Christia is composed of many people who believe in right and wrong.  These
beliefs will be offensive to some, this is as it should be.  Our country is
founded on a basis of freedom of expression, as well as other explicit
liberties.  Any attempt to censor or criticize this or any other list for
its content is a violation of the highest ideals of liberty.

Within the constraints of Christian and public decency, I cannot object
loudly enough that a person or group of persons would read the logs of any
list with an eye to finding hate email or things that are not "pc."  If
you, the reader are one of these, shame upon you.

Few societies in history have provided the freedom of expression this one
has.  I praise God that I am privileged to participate in this forum.  You
know, there is one part of Christia that is hate email, I think we all hate
sin and the father of lies.  Can we do that, can we hate sin, yes we can.
So, to the searchers for email hate material, you can tell your leaders
that Christia contains people who love God and hate sin.  If that's
offensive, so be it.

Dan Graham
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
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:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:24:01 -0500
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      That P' word again

Dear netters;

I have heard the argument expressed by Jesse Carnes and some others that
the words implying that salvation is available for all should not be taken
literally because such passages occur in books written to the Christian

elect.  Recently this argument was used in reference to 2 Peter 3:9.


I would like to point out that epistles were addressed to *churches*.  It
is generally believed that they were intended to be
circulated and read aloud in the local
churches.  As such they were addressed not only to Christians, but to
unbelievers as well.

I aThere also appears to be an underlying  assumption that the
elect cannot fall, and so the ALL of 2 Peter 3:9 must be interpreted
figuratively to avoid falling into absurdity.  My contention is that it is
far from proven that one cannot loose their salvation. (see Heb 10:26-27),
for example.  Is the book of Hebrews addressed to Christian's only?  If it
is, then v. 26 says that if we (meaning Christians) sin willfully after
we have received the knowledge of the truth there's no more sacrifice of sin.

In an earlier post I told Jesse that the proof for 2 Peter 3:9 was in the
reading of the verse.  This may have seemed like a cop-out to some.  What I
meant was that the passage  the verse is in is crystal clear.  I could
paraphrase and regurgitate it but there is really no need to.

That is to me, the beauty of the Gospel.  All one has to do is to read
believing that the Lord meant exactly what he said.  One does not need to
exegete the daylights out of it unless one has a theological axe to grind.


Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
X-Acknowledge-To: <LIBSAC@EMUVM1>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:06:12 EDT
From:         "SHELBY A. CROSS" <LIBSAC@EMUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      REPLY TO WOW!!!!

CONGRATULATIONS IAN AND CHELLON:

What a beautiful testimony of God's love.  Someone to love God lends us.
May you and Chellon have God's love, joy, and peace always.  My prayers
are with you both for a beautiful healthy baby.

Yours in Christ,

Shelby --  Atlanta, Georgia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:35:03 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Security of salvation?
              8 Oct 1992 15:12:46 -0400 from <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>

Eric ;

The question is not whether certain sins can be committed AT ALL, but
rather, can REGENERATE Christians who sins were Imputed to Christ commit
these sins, much less the "Unpardonable Sin?"


Jesse
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:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:08:52 -0500
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      That P' word again

>It IS both in reality.
>Jesus made the statement that HE would not cast anyone would come to Him.
>You, I believe, might be assuming that ALL can come to Him.

Yes, that is what I am assuming. (2 Peter 3:9)

>We are dealing with 2 sides of one coin.  On God's side, HE calls the shots
>as to who He will make ABLE to come to Christ.  On our side, Christ receives
>anyone whom the Father has made ABLE.
>The real question goes back to the first part of the Calvinistic pneumonic,
>"T" for "Total Inability." John 6:65 is an example of Jesus saying, " ... No
>one can come to me unless my Father has enabled him."

But the Father enables all as 2 Peter 3:9 suggests.  And I don't want to harp
on that particular verse overmuch, as there are many others that teach the
same thing.


>P.S., Brian, I do not mean to be a meanie, but looks as if you have nothin'
>but objectiions for this doctrinal issue ... why don't you merely save
>yourself the headaches and not address posts like these?

I'm not objecting just to be arguementative; it does seem to me that Calvinism
is based on taking Romans 9-10 literally and a whole bunch of other scriptures
figuratively.  I don't think Calvinists are justified in doing so.

If you don't have the time or inclination to answer my objections, fine.
I keep my aspirin cabinet well stocked for all the headaches this stuff causes.
(Your'e not politely telling me to shut up, are you? I  really would hate to
believe that.)

>And a thought question : "If a person does not serve a God who is in
>control of ALL things, then tell me what are they serving?"

They are serving a God who is in control of ALL things in spite of man's free
will.


Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:01:42 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Absolute Certainty about Authority
              8 Oct 1992 16:58:30 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Dear Darren ;

One question for you :

"How do you objectively know for SURE that You exist?"

Outside of some objective criterion, how can you know for CERTAIN
that you are notunreal?


Jesse Carnes
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, 14 Oct 1992 13:46:49 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Fatima, part 5 (Medjugorje

Elizabeth,

Thanks again for those messages  -- but did you intend to omit parts 1-3
on this list?  You posted them on catholic@american.edu, but not here.

Just thought I'd let you know, I am not suggesting you should, you may
have a good reason not to post them.

Eric
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Subject: Efficient & Logical.  (Was Re: That P' word again)
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:38:28 GMT

In article <01GQ0BTQ2MIA000UY5@LIFE.UAMS.EDU> BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU writes:
>Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:14:33 -0500

>It is inefficient to foreordain preaching as the means, if the ends have
>already been accomplished.  God is efficient. I think arminianism
>is more logical here than Calvinism because it teaches that
>people can make a real decision about coming to God when they come to
>know about Christ through the preaching of the Gospel.  (And I'm not
>suggesting that man bootstraps himself into heaven, etc. ...)

>Personally, I'll take the more logical of two competing theories
>any day.

Brian:

Please, brother, do not entwine yourself in this trap.  What makes something 
logical, or what makes something efficient?  Let me state it another way:
Are LOGIC and EFFICIENCY things God has to bow down to?  If so, then they 
are God's god, and why should we bow to him when we could bow to them?

Should we abandon solar energy alternatives because they are less than 20% 
efficient?  No, Effectual is more important than Efficient.

The other problem is the distinction between logical precedence and temporal 
precedence.  What I mean is that things that happen in eternity are not 
bound by the same rules as things in time.  There is no time-line in 
eternity, and we are talking about eternal things.  If A must precede B 
logically, does that mean that A must happen first, in time?

For example, the logical order of some of the major events in salvation is:

1.  Foreordination
2.  Calling
3.  Regeneration
4.  Faith/Repentance
5.  Confession
6.  Perseverance/Sanctification
7.  Glorification.

This follows the scriptures, e.g., see Romans 10, and shows the following 
chain of events.  God determines who will be saved.  He calls them, and in 
the calling, the dead bones come to life (regeneration, new birth).  The 
freshly-born hears & believes that word of salvation and repents from sin, 
confessing Christ as savior/lord.  He/she perseveres in the good works/fruit 
of that salvation until the end, leading a life of sanctification which 
leads to Glorification.

That is logical.  But what do we experience in time?  Some of us felt that 
our faith caused us to be reborn.  Others experienced it differently.

--
Bill Chapman, Box 1262, Mississippi State, MS  39762
<BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>           (601) 325-2042
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:34:54 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Test

This is a test.

Jesse
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:06:56 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject: Re: Security of Salvation?

Eric writes:

 > Then there's the argument that since you can't fall away,
 > anyone who does ostensibliy fall away was never saved
 > in the first place.

This view seems to get some support from 1 John 2:19.  On the other
hand, as Eric points out elsewhere, there are passages that seem to
support the contrary view. (See Ezekiel 18:24; 1 Cor 10:12)

When the Bible can be quoted with apparent plausibility on both
sides of a question, not every sincere reader will resolve the
problem the same way. Let us be gentle with those who do not share
our insights.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
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, 8 Oct 1992 17:14:34 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Security of salvation?

Excerpts from christia: 8-Oct-92 Re: Security of salvation? Tom
Brewer@LSUVM.BITNET (4596)

> How are you defining "converted"? If converted, they stay converted. There
> are those who appear to be converted, but we are not called to be fruit
> inspectors, just observers. Many people will appear to be converted, act
> saved, and think they are Christians; but that doesn't change the fact that
> true elect sons of God will never fall away.

> How can you know if you are saved? Believe God's gospel. That's what it
> means to have faith in the gospel.

You're contradicting yourself.  There are still people who believe the
Gospel, have faith, and so forth, but who later may commit a sin that
[supposedly] cannot be committed by a regenerate person.  Do you think
that all such people acted as Christians, and thought they were
Christians, when in fact they did not really believe and have faith?

> "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of
> God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on
> the name of the Son of God." I Jn 5:13

Does not preclude the loss of eternal life.  If one does not believe,
one does not have eternal life.  One is free, IMO at least, to cease to
believe.  If, as John says elsewhere, we believe, and obey the
commandments, then we remain in Christ, and we love Christ.

Eric
From: LIBSAC@EMUVM1.BITNET (SHELBY A. CROSS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Reply to Prayer Request-Carol
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:15:36 GMT
Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <LIBSAC@EMUVM1>

Dear Heavely Father,

We ask you  in the name of Jesus  to heal Carol's father from  the top of
his head  to the soles of  his feet and make  him whole. We also  ask you
Father to  take away all  pain and  loneliness; and please  precious Holy
Spirit feel his room  with your love and peace. Father  we thank you that
you have given  him such a long  full life and that you  will continue to
use him  for your  glory and  honor. Lord  we touch  and agree  right now
that your will be done in Jesus Name.  Amen and Amen.

Your sister in Christ,
Shelby--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU