HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: CHRIST, NOT PURGATORY
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:59:43 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92110507331901@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Question for ye :

   "We" will try to answer it for you.

>"Did Jesus' death at the cross make salvation 'possible' applicable upon
>the meeting of certain conditions, OR did Jesus ACTUALLY accomplish the
>forgiveness of all the sins for whom He died?"

   Of course there must be some conditions for salvation.  For one,
one must actually accept it (otherwise everyone would gain salvation,
no matter what).  This acceptance must also be genuine (many who say,
"Lord, Lord," will be told, "I do not know you").

>Concomitantly : "If the latter, can there be any punishment for sin left if
>all sins of those for whom Christ died were ACTUALLY Expunged?"
>laid on Christ who then bore punitive judgement in place of those whose total
>lot of sins were thusly borne in His body (ie., judgement for guilt concurred

   No matter what sins one may have committed, all one need do for
salvation is to 1) ask Christ for it, and then 2) obey Him and not sin
anymore.  If 2) fails, go back to 1).

   You seem not to make a distinction between forgiveness and
satisfaction.  Catholics do make this distinction.  God's forgiveness
keeps us out of Hell.  His satisfaction allows us to enter Heaven.
Christ makes both forgiveness and satisfaction possible for us.
Belief in Purgatory does not imply a rejection of Christ, because it
is Christ, through His sacrifice, who gives us Purgatory.

   Actually, I'd say rather the belief in predestination without free
will is a rejection of Christ's sacrifice, because it implies that one
does not even have to make the choice to accept Christ's sacrifice in
order to be saved.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:19:51 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      New World Order

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757

Recently, someone put a bunch of booklets in a dorm (maybe more) on
campus entitled "What's Behind the New World Order?".  It's as big
as a monthly devotional (like the Upper Room, Daily Bread, etc), so
it's rather lengthy.  I managed to get my hands on around 10 copies
of it.  I haven't had a chance to do anymore than flip through it a bit,
but if anyone would like a copy of it, you can send me your snail mail
address and I can mail a copy to you.  It's published by IBE, Inc (anyone
ever heard of them?).  From what I can tell, it talks about the New
World Order being evil.  It goes into some history of Christianity
and then some stuff about Satan and evil.  On the back it has a picture
of Bush saying something about the New World Order.

Anyway, since there was a brief conversation about this a few days ago,
I thought I'd let everyone know about it.  If you want one, email me at
amzimm01@ulkyvm.louisville.edu or amzimm01@ulkyvm.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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:40:16 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD?

Excerpts from christia: 10-Nov-92 Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD? Jesse
Carnes@LSUVM.BITNE (1127)

> You believe the will of man was weakened by Adam's fall? yes? Romans
> chapter 5 shows that We All DIED, when Adam died in that moment of sin.
> The dead need EXTRINSIC and LIFE-BRINGING ENABLING POWER in order to
> perceive the things of God.  Else, we are dead ... dead ... dead.

Yeah, so? Being spiritually dead and having no free will are entirely
different things.

We cannot be saved without Christ.  Hence without Christ we are dead --
spiritually dead.  This bears no relation to whether we have free will
or not.

> To beleive that we are merely weakened by Adam's sin and all that we
> need is prevenient Grace is to REALLY say that We save OURSELVES with
> Christ's help.  If that were true, Ephs. 2 is false, for we would have
> something to boast about before God.  You really think God is goin' to
> share the Glory in all of that??

If it is by grace, then we have no reason to boast.  Our WILLS are
merely weakened by Adam's sin; our lives are still dead without him.
Our salvation rests solely on Jesus's merits, and not on our own.  Yet
it is up to us to respond to God's grace.  I find the idea of God saving
people against their will wholly repugnant and foreign to Scripture.

To say that we save ourselves, Jesse, is to say that we do not need the
sacrifice of Christ.  It is not to say that we do not respond to God's
grace.  Read St. Augustine, the inspiration of John Calvin.

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and
pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear
from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."  (2
Chron 7:14)

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: Defining `Free Will'
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:50:54 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92111214252640@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Darren ;
>
>Sorry ol' bean but you swallowth the proverbial double-humper and straineth
>the miniscule insecto!
>
>Pretty good ambush on your part ... but poor polemics ... and unmentionable
>Apologetics!

Jesse, how would you react if someone replied to one of your posts saying
just "This is a load of rubbish" without even saying what it was in your
post that they objected to?

At least show Darren the courtesy of letting him know what it is that you
regard as "poor polemics" and "unmentionable apologetics", and where the
camel and the insect come into it.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:28:50 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CHRIST, NOT PURGATORY
              6 Nov 1992 17:52:41 GMT from <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Steve ;

I saw Brad's response and I find it polemically incoherent at best and
equivocal at worst.




Jesse
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, 5 Nov 1992 11:55:16 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: CHRIST, NOT PURGATORY

Excerpts from christia: 5-Nov-92 Re: CHRIST, NOT PURGATORY Jesse
Carnes@LSUVM.BITNE (542)

> Dear Steve Creps ;

> Question for ye :

> "Did Jesus' death at the cross make salvation 'possible' applicable upon
> the meeting of certain conditions, OR did Jesus ACTUALLY accomplish the
> forgiveness of all the sins for whom He died?"

The first is certainly true.  To say that Jesus's sacrifice
"accomplished forgiveness" doesn't make sense to me.  Forgiveness isn't
"accomplished";  what Jesus accomplished on the Cross was that he bore
the sins of the world through His vicarious sacrifice (including bearing
the punishment we deserved).  What Jesus "actually accomplished" was
bearing the sins of the world.

However, that vicarious sacrifice does nothing for those who do not
accept it.  You would contend that the Father picked out a few elect,
and then sent Jesus to die for them to effect remission of sins for
them.  I contend that Jesus came to die for the remission of sins for
anyone who would respond to God's prevenient grace to accept the
sacrifice of His Son.

> Concomitantly : "If the latter, can there be any punishment for sin left
> if all sins of those for whom Christ died were ACTUALLY Expunged?" laid
> on Christ who then bore punitive judgement in place of those whose total
> lot of sins were thusly borne in His body (ie., judgement for guilt
> concurred
> Jesse Carnes

Sins are not expunged until they are repented of and forgiven.  Do you
believe that Jesus's sacrifice remits sins for which someone refuses to
repent?

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:01:21 CST
From:         Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET>
Subject:      Quo Vadis ? #6

  Lubosh
  I love reading your stories, they are fantastic. God is so good, Wow
  wee, Praise his HOLY Name, Hallelujah!!!! Keep them coming Lubosh.    hn


   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: MARCHIBOLD@MSCD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Whose will is dominant?
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:03:50 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: MARCHIBOLD
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Jesse

The bible says that God made us in His image - which I take to mean that He
made us ABLE to be perfect.  With the fall of Adam we became unable to be
perfect because of the sin nature which we all inherit.  Jesus was and is
our sin substitute, God Himself lived the perfect life which He had originally
created us to be able to do.  When we accept His sacrifice for our sins we
are returned to the condition of Adam when he was created - able not to sin,
but capable of choosing to sin.

That's why we need the sacrifice of Jesus.

Molly Archibold
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:21:13 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Blood of Christ

Excerpts from christia: 10-Nov-92 Re: Blood of Christ "St.
Jesso"@LSUVM.BITNET (492)

> Eric ;

> Now I am serious with you. Look, simply put ... all of the sins of ALL
> those for whom Christ died, were obliterated in that Jesus fully met the
> demands of the justice of the Father.  All sins of those for whom Christ
> died were ERASED, by Jesus' perfect sin-substitutionary, penal,
> expiatory, propitiatory saving work of Atonnement.  Period.

Good! We are in agreement that the sins remitted by Christ's sacrifice
are erased and obliterated.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:30:38 CST
From:         Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET>
Subject:      advice

> Ok, I am sure some of you parents out there have had to deal with this so I'd
> like to know how you handle it.
>
> What kind of advice do you give your kids about this sort of thing?  And what
> is your theology behind the advice?   Help...
  zane of dhahran,
I have been a mother for 12 years now and I have learned that it is
best not to get involed when the kids have disagreements with other
kids, I use to get so upset when my daughter who is now 12 would come
in crying that the kids next door or at school or where ever had hit
her, and I would give her the motherly advice to not play with them
bit, and five no, two minutes later they were back to playing again,
this still happens even now adays with her. Somewhere she picked up the
philosopy that if they hit me, then we gonna throw down. Her father
and I told her to keep her mouth shut and mind her own business and
she should not have to fight anyone, well,so far so good, but I am
praying for a change in this attitude. Now, a quick word about my
10 year old and 8 year old son's, last week my 10 year old was in
a fight because some kid at school called me the b.. word, I asked
him if I was the b.. word and he said no, and I asked him if the boy
he was fighting knew me, and he said no, so I told him the next time
anybody calls me a b.., c.. or d.. word, just to tell them that
know she's not that, she's a Christian, he smiled and said ok.
Now the 8 year old, he is a real cry baby, the kid can cry on a
dime, because the boys are like night and day, the 8 year old would
rather walk away anyday then fight so I haven't had a problem with
him yet. It is truly amazing how these kids can forgive and forget,
I hope they always be like that, because it helps me to understand
what Jesus says about being as little children.
b.. word = female dog(as my daughter would say) c... word = cow(as my
5 year old would say) and d.. word = dog(as none of my kids had better
say, calling your friend dog is a new slang going around in Dallas, it
just turns my stomach..)

   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: STR008@UKCC.UKY.EDU (Julie Nott)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Psalm 139 and abortion.
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:11:47 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              12 Nov 1992 14:01:00 EST from <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>

When I related Psalm 139 to abortion, I did not mean what you think I
meant.  I was relating it to the fact that some people believe that a
fetus is not a "child" or "person" at the moment of conception.  In my
opinion, a soul exists at the moment of conception.  I, in my opinion,
believe that this verse makes that perfectly clear.

That is what I was trying to relate.  I may have some people who
disagree with me, in fact, I'm almost positive that I do.  We probably
don't need to start a thread on abortion...I'm sure everyone is sick
of hearing about this topic.

Julie Nott
Univ of KY
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:53:07 CST
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      BINGO!

MARK.... Loved that post!!! :)

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:57:15 EST
From:         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Freedon of speech.
              11 Nov 1992 17:14:35 GMT from <gjm11@CUS.CAM.AC.UK>

On Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:14:35 GMT (G.J. McCaughan) said:
>>   10th graders are given a home work assignment to actually masturbate
>>Both these incidents were in Mass. I may well post the story.
>
>This is pretty awful, if true. However, people have been known to spread
>such stories without adequate evidence; I'm not suggesting that you would,
>but I'm not so sure about 700 Club. What sort of school was this?

It was a public school in MASS. Though they didn't give the source, I
think it came from the book "Why Johny Can't Tell Right From Wrong."
I could try to wait for the author, and MAY post the story, but the
VCR is not on that show right now.

>
>>it "pop-ulution". We are parasites and need to be eliminated to save the
>
>Are you suggesting that Clinton is one of these people on the fringe? If not,
>why are you trying to associate him with them? Incidentally, what is it known
>that Clinton has said about abortion, RU-486 and such? (I simply don't know;
>this is a request for information.)

It was the "Clinton Camp" that said he was Pro Choice ALL the way and that
he had full plans to turn over "every piece of Pro Life legislation Bush
had put into place." Now if the Clinton camp is not Clinton....?

The lastest news release on CHRISTIA seemd to indicate just that. It sounds
like Clinton wants to jump on the same band wagon as the rest of these
people supporting them with money and moral support. Scary, if true.
>
>I hope nothing I've said has given offence, by the way.
>
You? :-) No, brother, no way. Just keeping me sharp... Yawn, and tired. :-)

Maks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:44:28 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Predestination or Free Will
              10 Nov 1992 08:33:09 -0500 from <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>

Eric ;

Tell me :

What would men do with faith in Christ if God attempted to give them that
gift, apart from first making them "born again" (Regenerated) in order to
be able to receive the things of God?

They would spit it out EVERY time.
No man is willing to come to Christ, unless Christ first makes that man
willing.  Left to their old decadant selves, men will ALWAYS REJECT the grace
of God and faith in Christ, unless God first does something a priori in those
men.
We, like dogs would return to our vomit, unless the Lord first would make us
alive by His Spirit, then we are able to TURN by faith to Christ.

A dead man as NO faith ... a dead man has no power to obey ... a dead man
cannot receive faith as a gift ... a dead man is dead.


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:32:58 CST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         JLong <JLONG@UA1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      Reply-Prayer Request-Bill C.

Dear Bill,

I understand exactly what you are going through because on October 26, 1992
I lost my mother who was in Christ when she past.   I love her but God Loves
her best.  My prayers are with you and your family.

Feel free to contact me at JLong@ua1vm.

Love, Janie Long
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 10:52:40 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: righteousness

> Mark ;

> You say that I need to do a word study on the Attributes of God that you
> listed.  Sorry ol' bean, but word studies pale in valid and effective
> results to   C O N T E X T studies.

If you want to know what the Bible has to say about righteousness, you
have to look up ALL the scripture that deals with the concept.  Otherwise
your study does not have anything to do with the C O N T E X T of the bible.

It is assumed that you look at each use of the word(s) in immediate context
in order to understand the specific meaning of the word as used in that place,
as well as the general context of the book and the themes present. Word
studies are an excellent starting points for a topical bible study.


> The Word of God is the Definition of God and His attributes ... not our
> subjective opinions.

True.  I just wish you would use the Word when you try to define God's
attributes.  You haven't done that yet.

	I find it interesting also that after talking about how
non-created beings cannot have any of the attributes of God, you then
recommend a book that systemized said attributes  as communicable vs
incommunicable. (BTW, you realize that you are using a definition of
attributes that is not standard english?  It is a specific theological
definition that is causing all kinds of communication probablems.)

	Instead of answering my questions and responding to my requests
for biblical foundations for your assertions, you tell me to find a book
not in the bible, and read it.  Nice.  If you don't have
time to post and reply adequately to all the threads going on, you need
to cut down on the threads you respond to.  We would all understand.
Or take things home and work on them, so that you can do a decent job.

> Jesse

	The question:  Can creatures have by nature any of the attributes
of God?
	Please provide biblical support.  Otherwise I will assume you
don't have any.

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:01:25 EST
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Harsh statement...

How about Psalm 9:17?

It's close, anyway...
Carol
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:50:35 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject: Re: Cannibalism as a way to cure Famine

Come on, guys, most canibal cultures eat the bodies of the dead. I mean,
they don't kill men for eating them. That is not sinful or even inmoral, it
is just different and to a western culture normal person it is repulsive, but
not evil, please !

Shalom,
Memo.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: jlaplant@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John R Laplante)
Subject: Re: Christian Attitudes About Cannibalism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:30:24 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92110606593665@ASUACAD.BITNET> Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU> writes:

>I too saw the documentary on the Donner party.  There is a similar story that
>I read once about a party of soccer players whose plane crashed in the Andes.

  The name of the book is _Alive!_. Publisher: Avon Books (?).
  The author's name is something like Piers Peter Reed. 
  I read it many years ago. Still quite chilling to think about it.
  
  An interesting if gruesome discussion. Two possible attacks
  1) Such a thing should be allowed for the sanctity of life
  2) such a thing should be disallowed for the sanctity of life.
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Women
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:15:33 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Chris,

    I don't know who said that either, but it sounds quite a bit like some-
thing Meister Eckhart said once about Eve being taken from Adam's side, set to
verse.
                                         Peace in the First New Man, zane.
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Clinton's Plans, Already
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:48:24 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92110904150561@ASUACAD.BITNET>, MKLINE@VDH.BITNET (Michael A. Kline) writes:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:52:46 GMT (G.J. McCaughan) said:
> >In article <CHRISTIA%92110718264130@ASUACAD.BITNET>, "Michael A. Kline"
> ><MKLINE@VDH.BITNET> writes:
> >
> >>     Clinton reportedly will get rid of the so called "gag rule" that
> >> restricts anyone but doctors at federally subsidized clinics from
> >> counselling women about abortion.
> >
> >This will, for instance, allow pro-life workers to offer counselling to
> >women who are considering abortions. Or is this allowed already? What
> >constitutes "counselling" anyway?
> >
> The purpose of this was to prevent abortion clinics who have a "special
> interest" in abortion (say about $200-400 a crack) to recommend abortion.
>
>   [there follows an extract from one of the Ankerberg series, describing
>    how abortion clinics "counsel" women with the aim of persuading them
>    to have abortions there]
> 
> THAT was the purpose of the gag rule.

All very horrible, and quite likely you're right about the purpose of the
gag rule. But you haven't answered the other things I said; does the gag
rule also prevent anti-abortionists offering counselling? If so, it's not
at all clear to me that it's a good thing, despite the horror stories you
posted.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]