HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:34:18 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Marian stuff

Not wishing to start a lengthy debate on the, subject, but I feel that I
have to say something about this.

I am a Messianic Jew.  Theologically and ecclesiologically, I am very
protestant.  Having said that, I can also say that there are many things
within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions for which I have the deepest
respect and understanding.  I was for many years part of a large ecumenical
Christian community (50% protestant and 50% Catholic, more or less), during
which time I learned a lot about how to serve the Lord with brothers and
sisters with whom I have theological disagreements, and how to love them
even though I think that they are wrong.  One of the keys to this is to
focus on areas of agreement (the Christian faith as set forth in the historic
creeds is a good place to start), and to tread very lightly in the areas
of disagreement.

What does this have to do with the Marian stuff currently being posted?
Speaking for myself, as a Jew I could never accept the Marian teaching of
the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.  As a protestant, I could never
accept them.  They fly in the face of everything that I understand
about the nature of God's dealings with the human race. And, notwithstanding
2000 years of tradition, I think the Catholic and Orthodox churches are
wrong in their teachng on this subject.  I can't speak for the other
protestants on this lists, but I am reasonably sure that they are of the
same mind.  While the Marian material may be "helpful" to the Catholics
and Orthodox on the list, it cannot but spark a really heavy duty contro-
versy on the list as well, and frankly, I have neither the time nor the
bandwidth available to deal with another controversy.  I am already
deleting nearly all posts deadling with predestination, security, and
other "calvinist" issues, because I already know the questions and answers
put forth by both sides.  I know the arguments in favor of the cult of Mary
and the validity of the apparitions, and I know the arguments against them.
I know their historical origins according to both sides.  I don't want to
talk about them, and I have no desire to see the heated arguments (NOT
discussions) which are sure to develop.

OK, now I've said my piece.  Those of you that want to talk about it, have
fun.  I will neither participate in the discussion, nor will I reply to
messages addressed to me on the subject.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
From: BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (Brenda Curry-White)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: If you don't like it, call it sin (Was Randall Terry's brochure)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:52:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X

WARNING:  Sarcastic post meant in the best possible humor.  (Translation:
if you aren't smiling at the end you misunderstood)

So now voting for Clinton is a sin.  I'm glad my pastor won't be using
Randall Terry's sermon suggestion.  I am confident that my pastor will
not tell us how to vote, but rather to search our hearts and minds, and
pray in order to make the best choice.

Growing up in a Baptist church, I have just about heard everything
described as a sin at one time or another.  Dancing, listening to
rock music, drinking, even co-ed chaperoned swimming has been
described to me as sin at some point in my life.  And now I can't
vote for Clinton because that would be a sin.  Sigh.

Now I believe that murder is a sin, adultery is a sin, and so on
because the Bible tells me it is so.  But in all of my biblical
meandering I have not run across Clinton's name in there once!  I
wonder what chapter and verse Terry consulted?  Perhaps it was direct,
divine revelation (move over, Pope).

Sarcasm aside, I am sure that we all know why Terry thinks it is a
sin to vote for Clinton, and we don't need to bring * that * up again.
I haven't intended to start any flames.  I'm more than a little miffed
that Terry would presume to tell people that disagree with his
political choices that they are committing sin when it isn't biblical.
We should all pray that we make the right choice, and that God will
guide our decision.

I'm sure that many on the list are probably planning to vote for Bush.
As for myself, I am still undecided, believe it or not.
Perhaps I'll write in "Mickey Mouse."  At least he has
a good television appearance, and as you know if you've watched the
media analysis of the debates, that's really the only important
qualification anyway (smile).

Brenda

You're smiling aren't you?  Hope so.
From: LINNEA@LIBRARY.HEALTH.UFL.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: John Michael Talbot's music style
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:54:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).

In my experience Talbot has an acoustical, easy style. And yes he is
a Christian artist, though of what affiliation I don't know.
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Security of salvation?
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:54:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) wrote:
> The opinion is often expressed that no Christian can lose his or her
> salvation, various reasons being given.
> 
> How can this be reconciled with the existence of people who show all the
> signs of being Christians, who believe themselves to be Christians, who
> then lose their faith in Christ, decide God doesn't exist and give up?

You seem to have answered your own question when you point out in a
later post that Salvation is not the only issue to do with our Christian
lives.

You give three possible explainations for what is happening here, i.e:

>  * It's possible to give up all attempt at serving God, stop believing
>    even in his existence, and still be saved. This seems wildly unbiblical.

Actually, I do not agree that this is unbiblical. In most cases I 
believe this is exactly what happens, although the issue is somewhat 
oversimplified in this one sentance.

>  * Every single one of these people will sooner or later turn back to
>    Christ. This seems wildly improbable.

Yes, this does not seem to be a plausible explaination.

>  * These people weren't really Christians, they just thought they were.
>    But in this case, where is our security in our salvation? Could not
>    any of us at any time discover ourselves not to be true Christians
>    after all?

This is a line taken by many people. You are correct in pointing out the
major flaw with this view, i.e. There is no assurance of salvation.

From my reading of scripture I am certain that we are meant to be assured 
of our salvation. I particularly like Romans 8 on this subject. This being
the case I cannot accept that people who backslide totally were never 
saved in the first place.

One puritan writer (I forget which) wrote "The Almost Christian Discovered."
This book shows this line of reasoning, but attempts to rectify the 
situation by showing how we can know we are saved, and thus never fear 
falling away.

The book is worth reading, but if you feel in doubt about your salvation
I would recommend a reading of Romans 8-10, especially Romans 10. From 
this chapter I *know* I am saved.

(And then their is the assurance of God's seal upon us - the Holy Spirit.
I believe that to be the highest form of assurance).

Anyway, I wrote at some length about these subjects in my ONCE SAVED 
essay which you can get from the CHRISTIA library in the normal way,
or mail me privately and I'll send you a copy.

> -- 
> Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,

Stephen.
-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:40:13 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject:      Re: WOW! ??

Matthias,

Perhaps soon we will have such devices, but they will be still secondary,
the Love of Christ is what keeps us as one in Him.

Shalom,
Memo.
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: God's Book
Date: 11 Oct 92 10:03:37 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Lon and others who are interested,

F.F. Bruce in his book >The Canon of Scripture< says,

>There is indeed in the >Gospel of Truth< a fascinating account of what is call
ed 'the living book of the living', the 'testament' (diatheke) of Jesus which
he appears to have both received from his Father (cf Rev. 5:7) and fastened to
his cross (cf Col. 2:14).  But this is a spiritual book, written in the
Father's heart before the world's foundation and now revealed in the hearts of
those who accept the divine knowledge.<  p.148

Of course for most of us this is not considered to be a canonical book, but I
thought you might find it interesting anyway.
                                              Peace in the Christ, zane.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:33:38 CST
From:         Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET>
Subject:      Prayer Request

Please pray for my family and me.

   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: bumpers1460@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: A REQUEST FOR HELP FROM A BROTHER THAT NEEDS YOUR ADVICE!
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:07:12 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

  JUST FOR CURIOUSITY SAKE,I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO ORGANIZE
DIFFERENT CHURCHES ( THAT PREVIOUSLY HAVE NOT WORKED VERY MUCH WITH EACH OTHER)
INTO A SINGLE UNITED FRONT CAPABLE FOR WORKING TOGETHER TO CONQUER THE FORCES
OF DARKNESS IN A CERTAIN AREA.
  THE REASON THAT I MENTION THIS IS BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN EFFORT LIKE
THIS BEGIN WHERE I LIVE ( WHICH IS WATERLOO IOWA).  I'VE BEEN TO OTHER AREAS
WHERE THE CHURCHES SEEM TO BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER VERY EFFECTIVELY IN ORDER
TO COME AGAINST THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL,AND OTHER AREAS ( LIKE WATERLOO ) WHERE
SIMILAR EFFORTS ARE NOT SO SUCCESSFUL.  MY QUESTION IS ( ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE
OF YOU WHO LIVE IN AREAS WHERE COMBINED CHURCH EFFORTS ARE SUCCESSFUL) TO SEND
ME SUGGESTIONS (PRIVATELY IF POSSIBLE SO IT'S EAISER FOR ME TO COMPILE THE
IMFORMATION ).  ANOTHER REQUEST THAT I WOULD ASK FOR IS THAT I WOULD ASK FOR
YOUR PRAYER FOR THIS AREA BECAUSE I ,PERSONALLY,FEEL AS THOUGH THERE ARE A LOT
OF SPIRITUAL STRONGHOLDS IN THIS AREA THAT NEED TO BE BROKEN,AND THE ONLY WAY
TO BREAK THEM IS THROUGH PRAYER.  AS JESUS SAID " IF TWO OR MORE GATHER
TOGETHER IN MY NAME AND AGREE UPON ANYTHING ON EARTH,IT WILL BE AGREED UPON IN
HEAVEN AS WELL".  I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN THE POWER OF PRAYER,AND I JUST ASK FOR 
YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS.  I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT IF THER IS ANYTHING THAT YOU
WANT ME TO PRAY WITH YOU ABOUT,FEEL FREE TO SEND ME A MESSAGE,AND I WILL LIFT
UP YOUR REQUEST TO THE FATHER,AND BELIEVE ( THAT IF IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
HIS WILL) THAT IT WILL BE DONE!
  THANK YOU FELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS,A PRAY THAT YOU ALL WILL SEEK OUT GOD
AND GROW CLOSER TO HIM EVERY SINGLE DAY,AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR FEEDBACK.
     THANK YOU!
     YOURS TRULY,YOUR BROTHER IN JESUS:
     FLOYD BUMPERS,JR.
t
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: That P' word again
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:02:08 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              9 Oct 1992 08:01:08 -0500 from <BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>

Brian et al ;

Context and ONLY context, be it micro or extremely macro, alone determines
how Connotative or Denotative a word is to be taken.
Answer a somewhat amusing connundrum for me : If John says in 1 John 2 that
Jesus is the propitiation for the "WHOLE" world, but goes on to show that
in 1 John 5 "...the WHOLE world is under the power of the EVIL one", then
does not LOGIC demand a contextualresolution to a seemingly endless enigma?

A good study in Hermeneutics and the process of exegesis might aid in this ...
and   P  L  E  A  S  E   don't say that the above statement is meant to be
condescending ... because that is sincerely not my intention.


I am no perfect expert in Hermeneutics, Apologetics, and Exegesis, but by
God's grace I have observed some major flaws in some people's modes of
arriving at their answers.
Being honest with Scripture in context is the Prime Directive in this case.
Nothing profound, nothingnew here ... but yet, it is profound when implemented
correctly and it honors Christ in doing so.
A question came to my attention in past years : "When you have more than one
rendering of a section of Scripture, WHICH one does the Spirit of God
honour as correct?"
The ONE rendering is the one which best fits the CONTEXT, for our God is
not an insane, disjointed, illogical being.  He thinks in Propositional
statements as we do.  Our ability to communicate in this fashion is part
of the Image of God.  Our God is a god  of Communication via Spoken
propositions.  Notice that He did not merely THINK things into existence,
Oh, He has power unlimited ... but, His inherent propensity is to SPEAK
and it happens by the SHEER POWER His words contain, just because HE speaks
them.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:14:20 CDT
From:         "(Carol Slingo)" <slingo@CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU>
Subject:      Commercial Christmas and Halloween

Well, I was walking to the bus thinking about why people in our
neighborhood feel impelled to put up skeletons, cobwebs, and monsters in
their yards on October 3.

Then I walked by a store that sells pools and hot tubs and stuff.  Guess
what.  They were getting out their Christmas decorations!

Just a thought,

Carol Slingo
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET (Love does not subtract, it multiplies.)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Secular Humanism
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:36:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"

<(1b) can be eliminated using several good arguments.  Obviously,
<science accepts that the universe and those things within actually
<exist and also are predictable.  Also, reality is confirmed by independent
<observations.  For example, if I say I saw a green cow on the moon, you'd
<say I was crazy.  But if you and others could observe the same phenomenon,
<then either (a) we're all crazy together, or (b) there really is something
<that at least _ looks _ like a green cow on the moon.  (Further research
<is necessary to determine if it really is a green cow or if it is something
<different, but the phenomenon is real.)

In place of "1b)It doesn't exist." we can place "1c)It hasn't been shown to
exist."

<Therefore, (2) applies.  However, we know that (2a) is not true.  The
<Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids it.  This fundamental law basically
<says that, in a closed system, the energy available for useful work will
<always decrease.  If the universe is a closed system and everything within
<the universe had been around forever, there would be nothing available
<for useful work.  Either (2a) is false, or the universe is not a closed
<system, which leads us to the supernatural.

This ignores the various theories concerning "alternate reality."


<So, we _ must _ ask ourself which of (3a) or (3b) is more reasonable.
<Doubtless, there are many objects in the universe which were "created"
<within nature, but they necessarily came from something that already
<existed.  The question being posed concerns the very first something.
<In this context, (3a) contradicts a fundamental axiom, The Law of
<Conservation of Matter and Energy.  If (3a) is true, then at the birth
<of the universe (or at least the birth of anything in the universe) a
<very large amount of matter and energy spontaneously came into
<existance... out of nothing.  Isn't it much more reasonable to assume
<that reality consists of more than our 4-dimensional space-time, that
<there are higher dimensions containing supernatural elements?

There are several flaws in this.  First, on a particulate level, energy can
spontaneously go from a state of non-existence to a state of existence.  It is
not unreasonable to believe that the universe could have begun as just such a
fluctuation at very high energy, which expanded beyond the particulate level
very quickly, before it could go back into that state of non-existence.
(Heisenberg's principle is a wonderful thing.)

Second, there is a bit of linguistic trickery involved in automaticly equating
anything from beyond our 4-dimensional (5-d? 9-d? more?  depends on who you
ask...) with the "supernatural", which term has more implications than the
literal etymology of the word.

Dan
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Security of Salvation?
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:03:30 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92101307392440@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>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.

Some correctly interpreted truth? Yes.
All correctly interpreted truth necessary for salvation? Probably.
All correctly interpreted truth, without exception? No.

>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?

Or that he hasn't chosen to tell us everything we want to know (as opposed
to everything we need to know) in the Bible. We have, after all, got a whole
universe out there too, and a certain amount of direct contact; and as for
anything we can't get from the Bible, our own experience, or the Spirit --
why, we'll have to make do with not knowing.

God can communicate to us anything he chooses. He is under no obligation to
tell us everything we would like to know, nor to tell us what he does tell us
in any particular way.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: evolution versus creationism
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:34:33 GMT
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University

In article <1992Oct13.171812.1@vax.path.ox.ac.uk> rpgrant@vax.path.ox.ac.uk writes:
>From: rpgrant@vax.path.ox.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: evolution versus creationism
>Date: 13 Oct 92 16:18:12 GMT
>
>> 5,753 years old is overwhelming.  For example, light from certain stars
>> takes millions of years to get to us, and we see it.  This means that
>> the star was created over a million years ago.  Some people have
>> posulated that God created the light en-route so it only _appears_ to be
>> a million years old; I counter that this would mean that God intended to
>> deceive us, which of course God would not do.

On the contrary, could it not be seen this way?  God, seeing that we would 
deceive ourselves by looking at natural revelation (science) alone, and 
desiring that we know the truth, gave us special revelation (scripture) so 
that we would not believe appearances, but would know of his great creative 
powers because he told us.

--
Bill Chapman <BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>   (601) 325-2042
Computing Consultant <wcc1@Msstate.bitnet> P.O. Box 1262
Dept. of Housing & Residence Life          Mississippi State, MS  39762
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:42:42 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Ways to evangelize

Wolfgang writes:
    "I don't want to be misunderstood. I'm not seeking to get higher scores.
     I just want to be a faithful servant. I do what I do with the best
     motives I can possibly have. This is the most important part. But I also
     want to make sure that there is no way I could do better - with the
     right attitude."

I think that we are basically in agreement, Wolfgang, but with one difference.
You are talking about you personally.  I was talking about ways that we as
a group of Christians should evangelize.  The original question had to do with
whether witnessing to strangers should be a focus, and I assumed that meant
a focus for us as a group of Christians.

I agree with you that we must all be good stewards of our resources.  And if
people were trees, we could all focus on the same kind of evangelizing that
would help us plant the most trees.  But people aren't trees.  People aren't
even interchangeable.  When we talk about evangelizing people, we talk about
evangelizing Sue, and Dave, and Mary.  Perhaps the only way to reach Sue is
by catching her on the street, and so no matter what our resources, someone
(not necessarily you) must go out there and get her.  Dave however, might
only be responsive to his friends, and so if you are Dave's friend, your
resources would best be served in trying to reach him.  We each as individuals
must use our individual resources in the ways God has shown us and be good
stewards of them.  But we must still make sure that there are Christians
who are able to use * their * resources in methods of evangelization that
we cannot.  As a group, we must make sure that we are evangelizing in many
ways, so that we can reach both the Sues and the Daves.  Does that make
any sense?  I think we really do agree on this basically.

BTW:  "Scardie cat" (pronounced scare-dee cat) is a saying we have for
someone who is afraid to do something, like a cat is easily spooked.  A
similar term is "fraidy cat" (pronounced fray-dee cat).

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