HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:09:50 -0600
From:         "(Glenn Radinsky)" <S05152@DOC.FLC.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Response to Jesse's post

Jesse writes:

> Dear All on the "Net" ;
>
> I have a question for you guys :
>
> "What puts you in right standing with God ... OR WHAT does
> God demand of us so that we are not under Divine
> condemnation?
>
> You have F O U R choices :
>
> A) Perfect obedience to God's moral commands/precepts.
>
> B) Faith in Christ alone.
>
> C) The indwelling of the Holy Spirit
>
> D) Both Answers B and C.


> So which is it folks??
> We shall hear from you guys today and then I want to
> address the question myself.
> Believe it or not this is a SERIOUS query ... no humorous
> blurb.

     My version of it goes something like this:  (A) As far
as perfect obedience to God's moral commands are concerned,
these are not things I am capable of obeying, even though I
have followed the Lord for some time.  I just do my level
best to make sure that I am headed in this direction.
     (B) Faith in Christ alone.  This is a hard one, as it
could be argued that faith in Christ alone is sufficient to
make me sin free, if it were strong enough.  But again this
is something that I just can't do, and I usually have to
settle for just trying to make my faith stronger.  As far as
salvation is concerned, I believe that faith in Christ alone
is sufficient for this.  His Grace is sufficient for me.
But it would be pretty hard to have this faith without
trying to act it out...
     (C) Being indwelt of the Holy Spirit.  According to
what I have been taught, the Holy Spirit took up residence
with me and sealed me when I accepted Christ as my Lord and
Savior.  Therefore it is a result of confession and faith in
Christ.  And I think I would be a rather ugly person of the
Holy Spirit were to up and leave me.  Hope it doesn't
happen...

     These are just thoughts, and are hopefully posted to be
pondered and not to launch doctrinal warfare, which I have
done my best to steer clear of, and will continue to steer
clear of.

                         God Bless,



                          Glenn :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
X-Acknowledge-To: <LIBSAC@EMUVM1>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:12:31 EDT
From:         "SHELBY A. CROSS" <LIBSAC@EMUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      REPLY TO CHRISTIANS AND DYING

The passage  you referred to  in John 11 was  realized this summer  by my
13 year old daughter Cheryl. (She happens to be saved and filled with the
Holy Spirit).  While she  was coming  down the stair  case she  jumped up
and hit her  head on a steel  beam from the other stairs  above her. This
knocked her  body flat and  she came  down flat on  her back on  the con-
crete below.

My 17 year old  girl Lisa heard her head hit the  concrete 3 times across
the street. She  ran over to her  and noticed she was  not breathing. She
began to say "In  the Name of Jesus, In the Name of  Jesus - No you can't
have her"  (referring to death).  She repeated this  until I came  out of
my apartment and saw that Cheryl was not breathing.

The following is  what Cheryl described to us later  at the hospital. She
said that just before her head hit the steel beam above her she was taken
out of  her body. At this  point she watched  herself hit the top  of the
stairs and land  on the pavement without feeling any  pain whatsover. She
stated that  everything was in slow  motion at that point.  She said that
as she was standing out of her body at the top of the stairs she was sur-
rounded by a bright light and experienced a beautiful peace.

As she began to  hear Lisa say in the Name of Jesus  she felt herself re-
turn to her  body and that's when  her breath was restored  and she could
then feel  the pain and  respond to  us. "Death where  is thy sting  - O,
grave where  is thy victory".  Truly we  can believe this  statement that
Jesus made and none of us should fear death anymore!!!!!

Yours in Christ - - - Shelby

                           END OF NOTE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:34:02 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Heaven,
              28 Sep 1992 18:35:57 GMT from <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Steve C.:
To your question:

>   We are cleansed in this way by Baptism.  How are we cleansed from
> the sins committed _after_ Baptism?  Also, are you saying that
> cleansing is the same as forgiveness?  Finally, what if one dies
> before asking forgiveness for some (minor or venial) sins?

You need to confer with ERIC; otherwise, you will be keeping this
"rabid Protestant" as confused as ever. Of course in my confusion I
understand that ERIC will say baptism is the means we use to apply
the cleansing of the blood, or he might say the cleansing is really by
the blood in the eucharist, which of course means then that baptism really
doesn't cleanse, but of course you might say you mean only the washing of
original sin, which is what many others have said already.

But, hey...who knows?

Now about this business of minor or venial sins: Good question, "what if one
dies before asking forgiveness...?"
What makes that sin any different from all the others he committed that
Christ has atoned for? Did Christ atone for His people's sins or not? If He
did, then that sin (no different from any other sin) is atoned for.

The minute you introduce some act of man concerning sins, you have corrupted
the gospel of free and sovereign grace. You proclaim a gospel of works if you
say the man must do something to be forgiven in some special way so that he
can die without any "unconfessed" so-called minor or venial sins.

Are cleansing and forgiveness the same? To split hairs, no. But if one has
been forgiven, one has been cleansed. You won't find one without the other.
And both acts are done solely by God's grace through Jesus Christ, not via
Pope et.al. or baptism, eucharist or other such so-called sacraments.

Tom Brewer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:06:53 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush, a Christian?
              28 Sep 1992 21:22:44 EDT from <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>

Lon:

I assume that was meant to be some sort of insult, implying that Rush is
in the pay of some shady conservative organization?

At any rate, he says so, he defends Christians and Christianity, and
that's good enough for me.

Love INC,

--Kerry
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Lost tribes of Israel
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:15:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

It seems to me that British Israelism grew out of two things in the 
late Victorian period (end of last century and begining of this one).

Firstly there was great interest in the so called "lost tribe" of 
Israel. Many people have suggested that this tribe became the Celtic
peoples. Such a claim is of course totally falacious, as can be seen
from the archeological evidence. Celts trace their roots to a mergeing
of the bronze age Beaker folk and Battleaxe folk in central Europe.

This argument is also particularly curious because the majority of 
modern day Britons have very little, if any, Celtic ancestry. (See
Nora Chadwick - The Celts, for a proper study of Celtic peoples).

The second basis for British Israelism seems to be a myth concerning
Christ comeing to Britain as a child. This myth is older then the 
British Israelism movement, and is related to another legend, 
mentioned previously in CHRISTIA (thus my public reply), that Joseph
of Arimethia(sp?) came to Cornwall after Christ's death, bringing
the Holy Grail with him.

The reasoning is not as bad as it sounds - Joseph was a merchant, 
maybe a dealer in metals. Cornwall was, even then, a major exporter
of tin, and various other precious metals were mined there too. 

In fact the Romans invaded Britain because of Cornish Tin and Welsh
Gold.

A well known song, sung in the film "Chariots of Fire", mentions 
this myth with the words:

"And did those feet, in ancient times,
 walk upon England's mountains green?"

(actually, I'm not sure it mentions mountains. It's been a while since
I sung that song!)

Haveing said all that, I believe this to be nothing more then a myth
too. We do not read of these happenings in the older British accounts,
such as Bede's work. It seems to have been a myth perpetuated with 
the Arthurian legends in or after the sixth century.

Anyone going to Glastonbury, in the west of England, will see various
sights relateing to these and Arthurian myths. 

It's all very interesting, but I think British Israelism has more to 
do with man's pride then Christianity.

All the best,
  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
From: ian@bvsd.co.edu (Ian Nelson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Security of salvation?
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:12:01 GMT
Organization: Boulder Valley School District


>gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) writes:

>> The opinion is often expressed that no Christian can lose his or her
>> salvation, various reasons being given.

I don't know, I have been told different things by different people.  I figure
that if you live for Christ and try to glorify God with everything you do, then
you won't have to worry about "losing salvation."  Even if it says that we will
never lose our salvation, why should we take any chances?  Not that God would
lie to us, but the Bible is subject to different interpretations.  I think it 
might have been Voltaire (maybe it wasn't) that said something like "if we 
cannot know whether or not God exists, what do we have to lose by assuming
that he does?  We only stand to gain."  So why would you want to do anything to
jeopardize your salvation?  IMO, everybody sins (thats not my opinion, thats
life), and if you ask God for foregiveness through Jesus you will go to heaven.
I wouldn't worry about losing anything unless you sin regularly and never ask
for foregiveness.

God Bless,
Ian Nelson
-- 
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0
mQBYAiqtYqEAAAECWKssWKoVxXAu9S0A/rKepT1GT+PJjv+lHh1LyIYwI9gzfnoq
ydwdKIJ81qIDgkMAliSIOWZiGSYbXszmmspRDenRARe15NOEM36pGQAFE7ABh7Qc
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:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 07:57:00 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: That P' word again

> So, putting the horse in FRONT of the cart, we must be MADE alive by the
> Lord before we can choose to be converted ... that is have a change of mind
> toward.

	Your belief, as I understand it, says that when God enables
one to understand and respond to the Gospel, one has been regenerated.
I don't think that this is a necessary conclusion.  I don't know of
any biblical resaons for beliveing this ( yes, I've seen some of them
posted here.  I don't think they apply.)  God can enable one to
respond to the gospel without regenerating the whole person.

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:03:10 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Songrette - Do what..?

Vicki--that would make a good Christian rap song!
If you don't like rap, please don't be offended.  I like it once in a while.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:39:42 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Legislating morality

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757



>it's "Josh, you have no right to regulate the morality of someone else."
>The church, the schools, the government, society has no right to
>legislate morality when it comes to sex. And then they'll say something


>    I always thought "No taxation without representation." and the whole
>culture is involved. Is it a private act between two individuals behind
>closed doors? If it is then you have to explain away that I was able to
>take all the different government figures and work out that for aid to
>dependant children and things from teenage pregnancy, for sexually
>transmitted disease expense of the government and taxpayers, for AIDS
>expense research and the cost to society and everything else, IT'S
>COSTING THE US TAXPAYER RIGHT ABOUT $73 MILLION A DAY! Our culture, our
>economy cannot survive that, especially when you add the cost of drugs
>onto it. Just drugs and sexually transmitted diseases can destroy this
>economy. It's too much of a drain.

Who do you think the taxpayers are?  Taxpaying is not exclusively Christian.
Those consenting adults also pay taxes and therefore have a say in how the
tax money is spent.  With the billions spent on government funding everyday,
how can you say that it's drugs and sexually transmitted diseases that
can destroy this country?  You are blaming the possible destruction of our
economy on a small portion of a whole (the whole being all the government
spending that happens everyday).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:31:43 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Death Penalty
              92 3:47 am

The Law of the Old Testament was to show us the righteousness of God
and the lack of righteousness of Man..

God said, OK dudes, if you want to come up to my mark, then this is how
you can do it ... DO this, do this, and this and this.. If you get one
bit of it wrong, then you have got it all wrong.. If you can live up
to this mark ,then you are righteouss in my eyes...

Human kind very very quickly found out that NO one could live up to that
mark. Everyone was found wanting my the standard of the Law, however
a man name Jesus came along and not only lived according to the law,
he FULFILLED the Law, and by doing so, FULFILLED the law for ALL who would
call on his name and be born again.

How does this relate to the death penality??? Well the standards set up
in the OT may be harsh, and so they should be, they were designed to
show us of our need for a God... The law was designed for a THEOCRATIC
(or God is King) society, in which we no longer live..

Someone said that adultery deserved stoning then, however now, adulterly
is much less of a crime so no one would advocate death.. Whether or not
this is good or bad, thats the way it is...
Unless we go by the WHOLE measure of the Law, and live according to it,
we must make our own laws and judgements on which to live by...

We can however and should base our moral standards on that shown to us by
God in the OT, but that (in my opinion) is as far as it should Go..


---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD"
X-VMS-Cc: B882SA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:36:00 CDT
From:         Sieg A U R I C H <B882SA@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>
Subject:      GOING NO-MAIL

I have enjoyed (although with little participation) the discussions on the
network, but due to a trip to Minnesota will, be going NOMAIL for a week or
so.  I do have a couple discussion issues, but figured that I better wait
until I return.

                ><> In & For HIS Service, <><
                        Sieg :{>
                B882SA@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:17:46 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Job Opening
              92 9:23 pm

Steve,
I thougth catholic meant universal??

Gee, after all I am a catholic! Maybe if I was a professor I could
apply??

Woops no, they meant Roman Catholic didnt they!



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:52:08 EDT
From:         MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject:      Rush on Children's Rights

Subject: Rush on Children's Rights

    (Rush does some commenting on Gregory Kay, a 12 year old, suing his
parents. Rush comments on it in general, and abortion.)

    ...and this business of children suing their parents is a big, big
deal. And in today's USA Today, (show was Friday, but don't think it was
"Friday's show. 9/25) the editorial comes out in favor of a child's right
to sue his parents, and I just want to read you a couple of interesting
lines from their editorial. The reason they support this, the reason they
say the kid should be able to sue his parents is, that "not all children
are better off with their biological parents." Not all children are
better off with their biological parents.

    And they use this reasoning. Nearly 2 1/2 million children were
reported abused or neglected in 1990... which is up 259% since 1976. Now
I have a simple question. (had the camera pan in REAL tight.) Now listen
carefully. I want to read this to you because it's important that you not
misunderstand this.

    The problem with this, in my mind, if 2 1/2 million children are
reported as abused or neglected, then it seems to me that the primary
remedy we have chosen in this country to eliminate neglect and abuse is
failing. That primary remedy is abortion.

    Pro Abortion activists say, "How can we bring a child into the world
when it may suffer? When it may be abused? It may be beaten? It may be
neglected?" Remember Joel Steinberg, New York City, had a 6 year old
daughter named Lisa? Adopted her? Beat her up enough that she died?

    JoAnn Wordward, great sociologist from Connecticut said, "Gee, if her
natural mother, her biological mother, had just aborted her, why she
wouldn't have suffered." So, to live is to maybe suffer? To not live is
to not suffer?

    Now we have a million and 1/2 abortions in this country a year... To
eliminate suffering? Neglect? and abuse? And STILL the suffering, and
neglect, and abuse continue to rise. I bring this up only to show you
that some of the logic used by pro-abortionists is worthless, designed to
appeal only to your good intention emotions.

    The reason kids get beat up. The reason kids are neglected, is that
there are irresponsible adults. And I hate to say this, but it might have
something to do with... values.

Maks
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:24:56 -0700
From:         mgilbert@FIRST.ETC.BC.CA
Subject:      Bush/Clinton/Politics in General

Brothers and Sisters,

We in Canada follow American politics with varying degrees interest and
trepidation.  When Uncle Sam sneezes, Johnny Canuck is admitted to hospital
with pneumonia (albeit under a government sponsored health care plan.)
While the specifics vary, I find very little difference in the character
and approach of our domestic politicians.

It is not my intent here, however, to enumerate what I preceive to be the
sins of our various leaders.  Rather, I invite your comment on an issue on
which I have had considerable difficulty reconciling biblical teaching with
the "real world".  Can these be the Caesars to which we are asked to
submit?

Mike

============================================
Mike Gilbert
    Technology Co-ordinator, School District #81
    Fort Nelson,  B.C.   V0C 1R0
    CANADA
    Voice: 604.774.6958     Fax:   604.774.6960
InterNet: mgilbert@first.etc.bc.ca
 ============================================
    A Proud Participant In B.C.'s
    *NORTHERN DISTANCE LEARNING PROJECT*
============================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:03:37 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         "(Brad Kaiser)" <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Re>Clement & Sola Scriptura
              6 Oct 1992 12:29:38 EDT <9210061633.AA26854@motgate.mot.com>

Leo suggests that some or all of the early Church Fathers taught "sola
scriptura".  He says that he sees no evidence of any of them
justifying their teachings using anything except the canonical books
of the New Testament.

That's great, but I don't think that's "sola scriptura" at all.

"Sola scriptura" states, as I understand it, that an individual
Christian believer is capable of reading Scripture and coming to a
"correct" understanding of it, through the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, and that this "correct" understanding of Scripture is the only
doctrinal foundation upon which the church should be built.

The Catholic position, on the other hand, is that all teaching should
be rooted in and nourished by Sacred Scripture (Dei Verbum, Vatican
II), but that no Catholic believer (not even the Pope!) has any
ability or right to interpret Scripture apart from or in contradiction
to the consistent teaching of the Church over the past two millenia.
It is this "teaching of the Church" Catholics mean when they refer to
the "Deposit of Faith", or to "Sacred Tradition", not to any
mysterious oral teachings, legends, or practices.  The doctrinal
foundation of the Catholic Church, therefore, must be this consistent
teaching.  Since Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the
Church can understand something more deeply today than she did before
(e.g., the Immaculate Conception), but she can never contradict what she
has said *authoritatively* at an earlier date.

Now, I don't see Clement of Alexandria, in the quotes Leo provided,
asserting that anyone can interpret or understand Scripture
authoritatively **apart from the Church**, or in opposition to the
teaching of the bishops.  If there is such a quote, Leo, I'd like to
see it.

Moreover, if the Fathers believed in "sola scriptura", why did Pope
St. Clement of Rome bother writing an epistle to the Corinthians at
all?  Why didn't he simply say, "Look, here, you study Scripture and
come to your understanding of it, then we'll compare notes, see
whether we agree on the "essentials", and if we do, we're still in the
same church; otherwise, we denounce each other as heretics and go our
separate ways."

(That, by the way, is precisely the process by which we now have 22,000
separate denominations calling themselves "Christian".)

In Christ's Love,

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