HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADDAWAY@UMBC.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Christian Music
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:51:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Original_cc:  HADDAWAY

>Todd!
>
>What is christian music?? Is it a song with the word 'Jesus' in it??
>
>A silly question but an intersting one from someone who does not believe
>in the concept of sacred and secular music..

Ian,

Excuse the generalities, but I should have said "explicit"
Christian music.  Music that honors God in lyrics and music.  This could
be done by "Jesus" songs or songs that support what the Bible teaches.
Sure, there are pro-Bible-value songs out there by non-Christians but
I think you know were I'm going with this.

As for the sacred/secular music issue. Well...  I don't buy the logic that
all good music, either lyrics or instrumentally, is of God, so it is then
"Christian".  Billy Joel has great music, but I don't think it is
"Christian" music.  God has given him his talent, but that doesn't mean
that he is using his music for God.  John Fischer (author, Christian
music guy) says that we can find the good is everything so we can enjoy
it for the good parts.  Well, Metallica has really great guitar licks but
I'm not going to say it's ok to see them in concert.

Enough of this miss-moss of thought..

-Todd
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: CHRISTIA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:16:14 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      celibacy

> they < CRJ > proposed the following questions:
> 1. Is celibacy a higher state than marriage?
[...]
> 3. Does the gospel teach celibacy?

> They answered "no" to all of them, which is surprising considering the
> Scriptural evidence against them.

	Interesting topic!

Being single, and having had a lot to do with other singles, including
ones older than myself ( ie youth on up to 50's ), I've seen that
in baptist circles at least, singleness is kinda looked down on.  It's
pretty sad.  Especially when Paul is pretty explicit in saying that
remaining single is a good thing; a better thing in some circumstances
than marriage.  And Jesus says that some are called by God to
singleness.

The question is, is celibacy a higher state?  That's different than
saying that it is sometimes a better state, or that God calls some to
it.

Is there any biblical reason to believe that it is a higher state?

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Re>Why Did Jesus Die?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:52:02 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              23 Sep 1992 08:17:28 EDT from <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>

Following up on Leo to Darren's query as to "why was Jesus killable, if
death is the result of sin" (paraphrased version), I want to add to what
Leo intimated at.
Jesus died voluntarily. Simple text statement.
However, Christ was not destructable in his Diety, for Diety cannot be
destroyed, by definition.
But, Jesus physically died because He WAS sinful ... in His Substitutes.
Although He was not sinful, sin was IMPUTED to His account by all for whom
He died.  This is what we mean by Jesus as a "Sin Substitute."
Now, in as much as He was credited with the sins of those given to Him
by the Father (SEE John 17:1-2), He also had to suffer THEIR PUNISHMENT of
WRATH from the Heavenly Father in their PLACE.

By suffering the wrath of the Father for sins credited to His account who
had known NO sin, He satisfied the justice of the Father (SEE Romans 5), and
thus Propitiated the Father's wrath toward those whose sins were thus imputed.
Being propitiated, those being saved have been RECONCILED to God.

this ... This ... THISis the G O S P E L.  The bottom line.
Jesus as GOD  and MAN came and reconciled a people to the FAther.  These people
had HAD no way to rid themselves of their inherited and voluntarily committed
sins, outside of a substitute.  Christ came and lived the life we ought to
live and gave His life as a sin-substitution in order to propitiate the
Father's justice regarding our sins.
Christ reconciled us to the Father by His own body and imputed HIS
righteousness to all of us who are able to come to Him (SEE John 6:65)by
the Father's Sovereign choice).


Jesse Carnes
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: iain@ee.ryerson.ca (Iain Campbell)
Subject: Re: males vs females and God
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:12:25 GMT

In article <9210030434.AA11915@a-hp.au.oracle.com> iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM (Ian Williams) writes:
>Hi!
>
>Its not a real big issue with me, however it occured to me that it might
>be easier for a female to accept the 'love' of Jesus in an easier sense
>than it would be a man!..
>
>I know Jesus loves me and I love him. but could a woman be 'in love' with
>him? Is that Blasphemous??
>

Our view of " love " is so tied to gratification of our own desires
that it is difficult to see what God wants when He wants to be
" in love " with us.  I have no problem with a man or a woman being
in " God love " with God (for want of a better term), what I need to 
do is to come to an proper understanding of this " God love ", eg " greater 
love has no man but that he would lay down his life ... " .

Also interesting to consider is the passage in Eph 5:22-33.  In
particular, v. 25, where love involves the lover in giving up his 
life for his love, and then v 32, where the obvious parallel is
drawn between marriage between a man and a woman, and the " marriage "
of God and His church.

AsPaul states, it is a " profound mystery " ...

In His Love

Iain

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:34:00 CST
From:         "A wounded heart must be gently understood...CP..."
              <MUELLERPA@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: History Test

Mike,

  I am interested in reading further about this 'History Test'.  I try
  to talk with some people here at work about the foundations of the
  government being at one time Christian, but everyone here always says

  that there is not evidence of our nation being based in Christianity.

  If it was, I would like to know more, if it wasn't, I would also like to
  know more.  If the list prefers that it not be discussed further, you
  can e-mail me privately if you want, if not that is O.K. too.

                                       Thanks,

                                            Paul Mueller

muellerpa@sluvca.slu.edu
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:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:38:38 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: New nature vs. two natures.

> Further, Unbelievers SIN because that is their NATURE.
> Christians periodically sin because of caving in to lies from the enemy,
				       --------------------------------
> rather than doing so because it is a part of their nature, lifestyle,
> or proferred pasttime.

This set me to wondering, and I thought that ther were some verses that spoke
to this subject.

Paul says in Roman 7:13-25

Did that which is good [ the Law ], then, become death to me?  By no
means!  But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced
death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin
might become utterly sinful.

We know that law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave
to sin.  I do not understand what I do.  For what I want to do I do
not do, but what I hate I do.  And if I do what I do not want to do, I
agree that the law is good.  As it is, it is no longer I myself who do
it, but it is sin living in me.  I know that nothing good lives in me,
that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is
good, but I cannot carry it out.  For what I do is not the good I want
to do; no the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing.  Now if
I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is
sin living in me that does it.

[sometimes I wonder if the preceeding pasage is less convoluted, or
obtuse, in greek than it is in English.  How does it come out in
Spanish or German?]

So I find this law at work:  When I want to do good, evil is right
there with me.  For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I
see another law at work in members of my body, waging war against the
law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work
within my members.  What a wretsched man I am!  Who will rescue me
from this body of death?  Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our
Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the
sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

And the acts of the sinful nature, apparently without the help
of satan:

Galatians 5:19-21  (read the whole book!  :-))

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:  sexual immorality,
impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord,
jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, fractions and
envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.  I warn you, as I did before,
that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:45:19 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         "(Brad Kaiser)" <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Re>Clement & Sola Scriptura
              7 Oct 1992 15:53:35 GMT <9210071647.AA19681@motgate.mot.com>

Steve Creps writes, in response to Dave Wagle:

>> In article <9210062137.AA00354@gval1.pnl.gov> ng910@GVAL1.PNL.GOV writes:
>> >	What is the authority for the doctrine of "succession of bishops"
>> >within the Catholic church?

>>    Dave, this doctrine is scriptural.  Read the second half of Acts of
>> the Apostles, chapter 1, in which a successor for Judas Iscariot was
>> chosen.


Also, see 2 Tm 1:6, 2:1-2.  (Timothy was an early bishop.)

In Jesus,

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]
From: BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: ASCII VERSION OF BIBLE
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:12:31 GMT
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.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

You can retrieve the Bible via anonymous
FTP from wuarchive.wustl.edu.  It is in the
mirrors/msdos/bible directory.  The files are named
disknnn.arc where nnn represents the number of the disk.
These uncompress into 66 ASCII files, one for each book
of the King James Version of the Bible.


Hope this helps.

Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:53:29 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      Jesus as God -- the alternatives

Darren, you complain that Josh McDowell is guilty of

 > using bad arguments written by OTHER people, such as CS Lewis's
 > famous "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" trilemma....

Actually, the argument is at least as old as Saint Augustine, who
expressed it as "aut deus aut malus homo" -- either God or a bad
man.  Why, precisely, do you think it bad? I see the following
possibilities:

  1) Jesus never claimed to be God. New Testament passages urged in
support of such a claim are misquotations.
  2) Jesus never claimed to be God. New Testament passages urged in
support of such a claim have been misinterpreted by the orthodox.
  3) Jesus claimed to be God. He knew that the claim was false.
  4) Jesus claimed to be God. He erroneously thought the claim was
true.
  5) Jesus claimed to be God. The claim was true.

If we have rejected 1) and 2), then the "trilemma" remains. Someone
might be called a bad arguer if he presented the trilemma without
considering 1) and 2). Actually, Lewis does consider them, though
not on the same page as the "trilemma." An argument, to be
effective, must start from where the hearers are, and so an argument
addressed to an Orthodox Jew might be completely imappropriate
addressed to an atheist. I take it that Lewis is speaking to those
who are already satisfied that 1) and 2) are not reasonable options.
Those interested in exploring 1) and 2) might find my Library Essay
JESUS SONOFMAN a convenient starting point.

But I am anticipating your reply -- which I await.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: KLA Instruments Corporation
Priority:     normal
X-Mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:41:18 PDT
From:         Mike Morris <kla!M_Morris%pid.csd@SUN.COM>
Subject:      Re: celibacy

=> > The question is, is celibacy a higher state?  That's different than
=> > saying that it is sometimes a better state, or that God calls some to it.
=>
=> OK, while I would not necessarily assert myself that celibacy is a
=> "higher" state, it does seem clear that Jesus urged anyone who could
=> accept celibacy to do so, and Paul definitely preferred that people
=> remain unmarried ("A married man is concerned about his wife and worldly
=> things, but an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord").  And, of
=> those who wish to be married, "If they are unable to control themselves,
=> then it is better that they marry than fall into sin."
=>

I'm no biblical scholar, so please correct me if (ok, WHEN) I err!

First, I can't think of any way in which Jesus urged people to celibacy.

Second, when Paul said it was better to be single, didn't the context
make it clear that he meant an apostle/evangelist, on the road most of
the time as he himself was, was better off single?

I don't believe at all that celibacy is a "higher state", unless and
until God specifically calls one to it. (And few are called to it...)

I'm not sure how to back this up biblically, but I believe that my wife
is indeed my "help mate", and a part of me. And God said that it was
"not good" for Adam to be alone, right?

Further, God says that homosexuality is wrong...when He says
something's wrong, it's usually because it's bad for us. I think
homosexuality is wrong, in part, because of the fact that male/female
marriage somehow "completes" us in a real sense. (This is due to our
basically different natures; obviously it can't happen in a homosexual
relationship.)

Therefore I think if anything, marriage would be a "higher state";
because we are 'completed' by our (spiritual/mental/physical) union with
our partner.




     ===========================================================
         Mike Morris  --   Internet:  sun!kla!csd!pid!mikem
                         CompuServe:  70142,1653
                          Facsimile:  (408) 434-4261
                              Voice:  "Mike"
     ===========================================================
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, 13 Oct 1992 08:14:12 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: evolution versus creationism

Excerpts from christia: 12-Oct-92 Re: evolution versus creati.. Mike
Hartley@MATHS.UWA.O (2948)

> Certainly, the fundamentals of creation science are matters of faith -
> namely that roughly 6000yrs ago, God created the world as per Genesis.
> This is a non-negotiable in Creation Science.

Do you really think this is non-negotiablein Creation Science?  I know
few Christians who believe that the universe was created 5,753 years
ago, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe
must be much older than that.

My definition of Creationism is the belief that God created the universe
ex nihilo, and all animals, plants, and man were created in their final
forms by an act of God.  That is, chimpanzees were created as
chimpanzees ex nihilo, man was created man ex nihilo, and fish were
created fish ex nihilo.  I do not see a strictly literal understanding
of Genesis necessary; for example, the  Hebrew word for day, Yom, can
also mean era or a very long time period.  Hence there is no real
objection to asserting that the six Yomim (Lon? is this the correct
plural?) of creation were six 24-hour days.  (Besides, how could these
days be measured before the sun and earth were created?)

I reject evolution, even theistic evolution (the idea that evolution
occured but it was directly caused by God instead of by chance), but I
think that the scientific evidence that the universe is much more than
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.

So anyway, I do not think that Creationism requires a belief that the
universe was created in the span of 144 hours.

Eric
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: That P' word again
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:15:06 GMT
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University

In article <01GPPASAM49M000BWC@LIFE.UAMS.EDU> BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU writes:
>Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:29:19 -0500
>From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
>
>> As a reply to the individual who implemented the "God is not willing that
>> ANY should perish..." scenario from 2 Peter 3, let me show not that the topic
>> of that section was the then soon to occur Parousia of Christ.
>> Contextually, Peter is using Eschatological language of the most dramatic
>> sort.  This same language was used more than once in the O.T. to show the
>> end of an era or ruler, but NEVER the end of the planet.
>> Overstatement is a genuine grammatical genre of the O.T. and is used to
>> indicate the next "Day of the Lord" as stated by Peter.

Brian:

I am afraid Jesse has not been specific enough.  The context that he is 
referring to is in the SAME verse (II Pet 3:9):  the real context is the 
word "you (pl)."  Peter is addressing some people, the YOU group, who are 
concerned with certain things.  Who are "YOU?"  Now, go to chapter 1 verse 
1, and see that he is talking "... to those who have received a faith of the 
same kind as ours...."  It is to a set of Christians that the letter is 
addressed, and to whom chapter 3 verse 9 is specifically addressed, "The 
Lord ... is patient toward YOU, not wishing for any to perish...." i.e., any 
of YOU, "...but for all to come to repentance" i.e., all of YOU.

This means the letter is to what we would call a church, not to an 
individual, and, as churches contain a mixed multitude, there is always a 
warning that they repent.  It is only those who repent and believe who prove 
themselves to be the elect.

Hope this clarifies the "context."

--
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
From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Peter Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Security of salvation?
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:30:58 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth

Eric Ewanco wrote:
>
> ...  From what I remember of
> what I was taught about Calvinism in high school history class, one
> cannot know if one is one of the elect, so you act like you are anyway.
> Hence there is no "assurance"; while once you are saved you cannot lose
> your salvation, you can never know if you were saved in the first place!!

This is not the Calvinism that Calvin taught. I would recommend a perusal 
of "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" Book 3, Chapter 24. 

Calvin believed that faith would be immediately assuring, and that we all
could be assured of our salvation.

"Something else to give us assurance is that our election is linked with our 
calling. Those to whom Christ reveals himself and welcomes into the heart 
of his Church, he takes into his care and protection. They are entrusted to
him by the Father, to be kept to life eternal. Christ himself underlines this
(John 6:37-9; 17:6, 12). If we want to know whether God cares about our 
salvation , we merely ask whether he has committed us to Christ, whom
he has appointed to be the only Saviour. If we doubt whether we are 
accepted into Christ's protection, he deals with the doubt when  he offers
himself as our Shepherd, and states that we are among his sheep if we
hear his voice (John 10:3,16). So let us lay hold of Christ, who is lovingly
offered to us, and comes out to meet us; he will number us among his 
flock and keep us in his fold."

Institutes 3:24:6
> 
> Eric
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
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:04:11 -0500
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      Re: That P' word again

I didn't say that your interprtation was wrong because it was Calvinistic.
I said it was wrong in that it interprets some scripture figuratively that
were meant literally.

I think that interpreting scripture in that manner is erroneous because
that is not the normal way of interpreting any written material. The normal
method of interpretation of any text is to take the words at face value unless
the context indicates that the author intended them to be taken in some other
way, or when taking them literally results in an absurdity.

So for example when Paul says that the Gospel has been preached to the whole
world, we don't take it literally because common sense tells us that most
of the world had yet to be discovered.

On the other hand, when Peter says that the Lord is not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance, I think he means exactly that.
If he had meant that the Lord wasn't willing that the elect would perish so he
would enable them to repent he would have said it that way.

>Could you give me an exegetical rebuttal to my exegesis?
>In other words, you say my modus operandi of exegeting Scripture is way
>out of bounds (in that it is Calvinistic).
>How so?? Show me my error in Hermeneutics ... could you please?
From: talaga@E5SB.OSDHW.SYR.GE.COM ((dave talaga x2752))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Saint Jesso
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:22:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

Jesse,

Have you been getting my email?

Dave Talaga
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:21:51 -0400
From:         "(Toni J. Benner)" <tjbenner@COLBY.EDU>
Subject: Re: IMHO?

It means In my humble opinion. Don't feel bad. I had to ask that question
too.
Toni B