pot

Both/And
From: James D Coogan <cooganjd@juno.com>

Hi Owen and All -
Your "both/and" on "free will/predestination" has me thinking more about
God's marvelous grace and love for us. Why is it so hard for us to
accept that God can love us UNCONDITIONALLY when we were yet sinners, but
now that we are Christians we put all His love into the box that if we
take a step-outta-line, yes, let's even say knowingly, (which of course I
am not advocating) that ZAP here comes the lightening, (or that we judge
that the lightening Should Zap, and can't figure out why it doesn't). We
can't see how God could have a relationship with that person, since they
are indeed, in our humble opinion, not worthy of God's unconditional
love. It is true, "now you say you see your guilt remains," but how can
we say that person can't make their peace with God in spite of our bad
opinion of their action. Cobu taught us to be so very conditional!
Works, works, works. I'm not saying there shouldn't be works, our faith
is dead without them, but Who is this "unpleasable" God that ST taught
us? He never smiles, he never looks with favor on his children or
chosen, he is up there waiting for any of us to have a wrong thought
(watch out for that Gita reading) and he is ready to strike us dead,
sending us into hell even after we have prayed faithfully against it up
until the one moment we made an error in judgment. I don't think it
works that way. Not with a God that got Hosea to go after his prostitute
wife over and over and over. Not with a God Who died on a Cross after
allowing His created beings to spit on Him. It amazes me, Christians
that Jim & I know, who are downright nasty (like the Lt. in Forest Gump)
to God, and He seems to respect their honesty of relationship with Him.
I personally don't like it; I tend to see things too often from the older
brother's viewpoint in the Prodigal Son story, I will say to my shame.
But there it is. My conditions just don't apply to other people's
relationships with God. He can say, "well, these worked only part of the
day, but it is my prerogative to pay them the whole wage." I don't
understand it, or claim to, other than I'd sure be glad if that mercy was
extended to me. And sometimes, I guess it is. Nancy C.
============================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>

Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not in a figure.
A peek into your heart and the heart of God.
I just wanted to post it again in case someone wants to read it again...
=========================================
From: Milnet607@aol.com

SOMETIMES??
MY DEAR SISTER IN CHRIST,
GOD AND JESUS' MERCY, GRACE AND LOVE IS ALWAYS EXTENDED TO YOU! WHY, IF GOD
WERE TO PICK AND CHOSE, THAT WOULD MAKE HIM PREJUDICE AND UNFAIR. THINK
ABOUT IT! IF WE AS CHRISTIANS CAN'T ACCEPT HIS FORGIVENESS AND GRACE FOR US,
HOW ON EARTH MAY WE EXTEND IT TO OTHERS?
GRACE AND MERCY,
IN OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
CATHY KIRBY MILLER
========================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com

In a message dated 99-07-05 13:18:07 EDT, you write:

<< IF GOD
WERE TO PICK AND CHOSE, THAT WOULD MAKE HIM PREJUDICE AND UNFAIR. THINK >>
Kathy,

"Our God is in the heavens, He does whatever He pleases."

Why do people have a problem with God selecting or choosing? When you read
the Old Testament, do you find it unfair that God picked Abraham and
ultimately the Jews? Do you have a problem that of all the Jews, He chose
the tribe of Judah to bring forth the Christ or that He chose Bethlehem, Mary
and Joseph?
In all His creation, He chose man to communicate with; not dogs, cats, etc.
Should we be upset that He did this according to His Will and good pleasure?
If you consider these examples of God's Sovereignty, you will begin to think
of many more and then begin rejoicing that God would choose you.

Your brother In Christ,
JT
=======================================
From: Milnet607@aol.com

Dear JT:
I'm not sure who you are, and maybe you don't remember me.

I was saved in Worcestor Fellowship in December 1979. I have been out of COBU
for 12 years. I have done a lot of recovering and healing in those days. So I
am growing in Grace. I thought that you would like to know a little about me.

Anyway, To address your statement toward God and he does whatever he pleases.
In a letter to our sister in Christ, Nancy, I was referring to a statement
she had made ".....That sometimes God shows Mercy, even to me." I wanted to
reassure her that God's Mercy is extended to her all of the time. I know my
God and his enduring love and grace. There are many verses in the Bible that
will testify to the statement:

2Peter 3:9
Eph 1:5
Eph 1:15 "sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise" God must be true to himself.
Eph 2:4
Please also read the passage in Nehemiah 9:28-32.
Please, also read the WHOLE chapter of Ec 8. So that you may understand what
is implied regarding Our Heavenly Father's nature
I am concerned that somehow you received the impression that I was
unthankful. WOW, I am so thankful, super de dooper thankful!!!!!!!!! that
Jesus saved a wretch, wretch sinner like me!
Grace to you in our Lord Jesus Christ!
=============================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com

Dear Cathy,

I did not mean to imply that you were not thankful for God's grace, it was
not my intention to question your thankfulness. I am sorry that it caused
you concern.
I read the passages that you posted and I am not sure what you are meaning by
asking me to read them (with respect to my post). If you care to, you can
post an explanation of how Ecc 8 implies Our heavenly Fathers nature.

In Christ,
JT
=============================================
From: HMWSAILING@aol.com

Well said John, ROM 9 speaks to this very topic of God choosing.

Herm Weiss
===========================================
From: Milnet607@aol.com

Finally, John,
I get the chance to respond to your inquiry. Sorry it has taken me so long. I
have to pray and ask God to add about five extra hours to my day so I can
accomplish even short term projects. I do want others to understand that I
believe in Eternal Security. So if you don't wish to read this post, that is
fine. I will not be offended. I still consider you a brother in Christ. There
was a time in my Christian Life where I thought eternal security people were
reprobates, undeserving of salvation.
Okay, here I go. I am not a well seasoned expert on the scriptures Like Herm
and you other Bros..but I will make an attempt to explain Ecclesiastes 8 in
regard to Gods nature.
I hope I did not use the word implies his nature. And out of respect for MM,
I will reference the NASB. But I still prefer KJV-Sorry Guys...I'm hooked
:|.
ECCLESIASTES 8

1-V--Who is the wise man and who knows the interpretation of a matter? A
man's wisdom illumines him and causes his stern face to beam. {If one were to
read the first 3 Chapters of Proverbs, it would help uncover how a man
becomes wise in the first place.}
2-V--I say, "Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God." {I
do not know what Solomon meant here regarding "the oath of God," but I do
understand that he is urging the reader to obey the king, or whom ever is the
authority to who you submit.}
3-V--"Do not be in a hurry to leave him,-[ (him-king). Not reference to
God--him--H is generally capitalized when the scriptures speak of God or
Jesus in the pronoun form. i.e.-Him, He.]-Do not join in an evil matter, for
he will do whatever he pleases." {Solomon may have meant --God in a reference
to the nature of God, his many faceted nature. Job is the brother who
probably understands the nature of God better than any one.}
But it is my understanding here that the way the words read, Sol is referring
to the nature of those who are in authority over us. Because when I read the
next verse it makes more sense.
4-V--Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What
are you doing?" Here again, note the lower case of pronoun. Sol is not
talking directly of God. But, that is not to exclude the possibility either.
5-V--He who keeps a royal command experiences no trouble, for a wise heart
knows the "proper time and procedure"-{not sure what this means}.
But as a reference to following the rules of any place, home or society, if
you don't break the Law, you won't go to Jail! Maybe, (proper time and
procedure refers to)- ignorance of the law is no excuse?
6-V--For there is a proper time and procedure for every delight, though a
man's trouble is heavy upon him.? This one does escape me.
7-V--If no one knows what will happen, who can tell him when it will happen?
dittos to this one as well.
8-V--No man has the authority to restrain the wind with the wind, or
authority over the day of death; (deep dude), and there is no discharge in
the time of war, and evil will not deliver those who practice it. {It appears
that Sol is lamenting about life in general, especially about the woes of
the human race-Life without our Heavenly Father being in charge?}
9-V--All this I have seen and applied my mind to every deed that has been
done under the sun wherein a man has exercised authority over another to his
hurt-{Reference to Stewart Traill}.
10-V--So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out
from the holy place, and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did
thus. This too is futility. {Hey somebody get this guy a joke book, Please. I
need to go for my Happy sessions at Peaceful Valley}
This just may be what cults are about or churches that are legalist. Perhaps,
Solomon is referencing, [if you don't listen to those so called
authoritative, religious kings, and do with respect to them, you will suffer
great burdens and hurts; because, they are the Boss, they CAN do as they
please.] Reference: The terror of a king is like the growling of a lion; He
who provokes him to anger forfeits his own life. Proverbs 20:2}
After this last verse I am thinking that Solomon takes a bit of a turn and
begins to speak of a related matter. But this is a very helpful reminder of
How I am Glad that God is not like earthly kings, but rather is full of Love,
Mercy, Justice, Grace, Compassion, Gentleness, Forgiving our weakness--Loving
us soooo much he gave up his only son, the heir to the throne..For me, when I
could not even care a less. I know I would not have done the same for him.
===========================================
From: HMWSAILING@aol.com

Hi Cathy, Some of the elements of the sovereignty of the king in ECCLES 8 Are
seen in the ROM 9 chapter on God's Sovereignty. For example ECCLES 8:3
he does whatever he pleases is stated in ROM 9:!8 His desires to either have
mercy or harden people which is His right as Creator. In ECCLES 8:4 it says,
who will say to him, "What are you doing?" In ROM 9:20 It says, "Will the
thing molded say to it's
Maker why have you made me thus?" However in saying that God does whatever He
pleases I qualify that by saying God will not do anything against His Nature
& Attributes unlike an earthly king. This is a hard saying as the chapter
implies that it is.

Herm Weiss
============================================
From: Milnet607@aol.com

Hey Herm,
Thanks for that bit of insight. You know that I have had a hard time
understanding why God choses to harden the hearts of some and not others. But
knowing our heavenly fathers wisdom. He does for a good reason, and because
he loves US.
Grace to you
Cathy
===========================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com

Cathy,
Thanks for the time and your response. How old are your children? We have
four but they are older, 19-13 in ages. I don't have much time this evening,
so I'll look more closely at ECC 8 and respond.
In Christ,
JT
===========================================
Calvinism/Reformation
From: JThomas945@aol.com

Calvin wrote the "Insttutes", you can try to read them, but they are long and
difficult reading. There is a short book called the five points of
Calvinism, which is a good synopsis of the "calvinist" position, but Calvin
didn't develop "TULIP", these five points were developed after his death at
"the Synod of Dort" cheifly by a man named Gomarus who opposed Arminius in
1619. A little research at a Christian Seminary's library would probably
give you plenty of info. You can read about the reformation in almost all
history of Christianity books. i referred to one written by Justo L.
Gonzalez, called "The Story of Christianity", when I gave the above info
about Clavin.

JT
===================================
From: Owen
        Dear Rosie
       Good question and everyone asks it. We invite everyone and everyone is allowed to come (John 6:37), but not everyone will come. (Some will only come in pretense.) If any one does truly come to Jesus then we are assured by scripture (Jn 6:44&Eph1:4)that he was chosen before creation, and can't pat himself on the back (for having the good sense or character to "choose Jesus") Eph 2:8. BUT we are not shown the book of life, so we won't know (about others) until the end.
        Scripture teaches both predestination and free will (that is personal responsibility). Our finite limited human minds can't reconcile the two BUT we don't need to. They are both taught in scripture.
      IF it is all free will, THEN every single stranger that I see in the street who goes to hell, is somebody that I could have rescued if I had tried to talk to them. SO get off the onelist and start running around witnessing to everybody you see. That store clerk might be the next Billy Graham, if only you'ld take 20 minutes to witness to him. AND if that store clerk could become a great evangelist and lead thousands to Christ then you are condemning thousands to hell by not stopping what you're doing and sharing the gospel with him. (Am I speaking clearly enough?)
        Some will thimk that predestination implies fatalism - the lazy attitude that says "well if it's predestined then I'll do nothing". BUT scripture doesn't teach that either.

                    And by my Lord I'll get there
         Owen Camp    Bronx NY    dococ@prodigy.net
===================================
From: James D Coogan <cooganjd@juno.com>

Owen, in your post you seem to be saying that those of us who feel a
compunction to witness to people may be under a delusion that it will do
any good if that person isn't included in the Big Book. Truly, those who
witness to others out of an inordinate sense of duty (Can we say
Contacts, Conversations & Conversion chart) may be missing the whole
point. However, when a person is guided by the Holy Spirit to talk to
another about salvation, surely you are not saying that one should pass
it on by, as God will save that person anyway, without your input, so why
bother... right?

Because "extreme" predestination has done a lot over the centuries to
dissuade missions, and that I personally am against. And, I sincerely
thank God that he used brethren from Cobu to talk to me(in 1976). I had
no other Christians in my life to do so, and it seemed that
"conventional" churched people had written me off! Nancy C.

"The Church exists by Mission as Fire exists by Burning."
=====================================
From: HMWSAILING@aol.com

Well said Owen, Romans chap. 9 teaches about predestination. Chap.10:14-15
speaks of the means (preachers) God uses to spread the gospel to both those
who will believe (the elect) & those who reject the gospel (vs.16-21) so it's
not the
fatalistic well if God wants to make someone believe he doesn't need my help.
It's true but God chooses to involve the church in advancing the Kingdom.

Herm Weiss
===========================================
From: HMWSAILING@aol.com

Hi Nancy, You are quite right in saying hyper-Calvinism deterred many a
missionary,
including that great missionary to India at the end of the 1700's, William
Carey. He
had a calling to India & when he went to the elders of his church, He was
told by one of them, "If God wants to save the people of India He can do it
without you." This
is only a half truth as God chooses to save his elect by the means of
preaching the
word. That's obvious in reading ACTS & ROM 10:14-15.

Herm
==========================================
From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>

From: Owen
        Dear Nancy
       You are right. I am surely not saying that we should ignore the
Spirit's leading. We are His hands and His feet. Doing nothing is one
extreme, while running around like a chicken with its head cut off is the
other.
         We can't carry the weight of the world on our shoulders as we
sometimes did in OZland.
        William Carey who led missions to India believed in predestination.

And by my Lord I'll get there
Owen Camp Bronx NY dococ@prodigy.net
=========================================
From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>

From: Owen
        Dear Tom
       The natural man has free will concerning normal worldly business (ie.
calling in sick, punching someone in the nose etc). But concerning
recieving Christ, he is dead in his sin and can't possibly do anything to
help himself. (This is a paraphrase of one of the Augsburg confessions.)
        We will not be able to boast that "I choose Christ as saviour, while
you morons walked way". No we won't boast at all.

And by my Lord I'll get there
Owen Camp Bronx NY dococ@prodigy.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
To: cobu@onelist.com <cobu@onelist.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [cobu] Free Will vs. Predestination (the "hidden variables"
dilemma)

>From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
>
>
>
>Fred wrote:
>
>> Tom Pierron wrote:
>>
>> > > My friends, this is the perfect prescription for MIND CONTROL. And
it's been
>> > > working quite well too, over the centuries. If you believe in those
extremes,
>> > > rest assured, your mind and your destiny is not under YOUR control.
Not really.
>> >
>> > In 1989, while I was there (at COBU) we had a big debate about
predestination
>> > vs free will. And I said if I slug you in the nose right now, was it
predestined
>> > that I slug you in the nose?
>
>Just a question and an observation - - -
>If you believe what you wrote to be true - is that not a belief (you say
you have none).
>And if you are admitting to having a spirit, why, that is a wonder!
>If there are spirits, then.... what about the creation of this spiritual
realm?
>
>How I've heard predestination explained (in 50 words or less...) :
>When God created - he made everything all at once - the end from the
beginning.
>He stands outside of time. We see time as a stream, and we're a leaf
floating down it.
>God looks at the end of time and sees Tom "made it" - therefore, he chooses
me.
>============================================
JOHN *8

>From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
>
>> From: Doris Petini <dpetini@safeplace.net>
>>
>> The Word of God is what changes us inside out. My Pastor preaches and
>> teaches the Word and I read it at home as a berean.
>>
>> Interfering in people's lives is simply rude. There is a difference of
>> discipleship (usually a mutually accepted thing) and using scripture to
>> beat people over the head with. People that seem to think they need to
play
>> Holy Spirit in people's lives by using scripture to magnify personal
issues
>> are usually the ones who scream the loudest to drown out their own sins
and
>> cause distraction so people don't notice them. These are the same people
>> Jesus turned away from stoning the adultress and believe me as you and I
>> speak here, Jesus sees the heart issue here and the God of Psalm 18 will
>> deal with Gerrie's accusers....they may be men accusing another human
being
>> but we all know where accusations stem from, Satan! We choose daily to
>> stand for and speak for the kingdom of darkness or the kingdom of Light.
>> Those attacking Gerrie, because they are casting stones can only be
>> speaking from Satan's kingdom, allowing their tongue to be used as a
>> venomous weapon of Satan. Gerrie....if God be for you, who can be against
>> you..and God IS for you. God resists the proud and I really feel bad that
>> Neil and his fellow stone throwers will one day come to see how wrong
they
>> are and are remorseful..I would hate to be in their shoes.
>
>Amen - worth reading over and over. Let it register.
>
>
====================

From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>

From: Owen
        Dear All
       In John 8 we read a story about a group of men who bring to Jesus a
woman caught in adultery and ask Him whether they should stone her or not.
        You see in first century Palestine the Roman rulers did not allow
the local authorities to carry out the death penalty. Any death penalty
cases had to be brought to them (they didn't want their collaborators
getting killed). If Jesus said to stone her he'd be in trouble with the
Romans, but if he said to not stone her the group would denounce Him for not
obeying the law of Moses.
        So Jesus (who gave the law to Moses) went back to the actual law.
The law (Lev 20:10) commands that both the man and the woman must be put to
death. There is no provision for stoning only one of them. And if this
woman was caught in the act, guess who else was caught in the act? And if
you help hide a lawbreaker what does that make you?? So all these men who
were only bringing half of the sinful couple forward were taking part in the
couples sin.
        So when Jesus demanded that whoever throws the first stone be
without sin, he wasn't excluding people who disobeyed their parents, or
those who failed to love every neighbor as themself. He was excluding those
who covered up for the woman's lover. People who were taking part in that
particular act of adultery. (And no one else [ie the disciples] witnessed
the act. And even if she admitted the crime, she couldn't be stoned without
two reliable eyewitnesses.)
        John 8:7 often gets misapplied during debates about the death
penalty.

And by my Lord I'll get there
Owen Camp Bronx NY dococ@prodigy.net

======================================================
From: James D Coogan <cooganjd@juno.com>

ROFLOL - suppose the guy was just a fast streaker?
Nancy C.
=================================
INTERPRETATION?TRANSLATION
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

Regarding interpretation of the Word.

I find it a common and constant theme, this
rightly dividing the word of truth. The general
tenor of these discussions seem to take a fixed
position. Allow me to illustrate a few.

The Rossetta Stone

These brethren are looking for a hidden key to
translation of the scripture. They seek the
language that was lost at the tower of Babel.
As the Psalmist said," the heavens are telling
the glory of God,the firmament proclaims His handiwork."
Have you heard of Kabbahla? They believe that if the Torah
is read in a certain pattern that it has power to
heal and do all kinds of things. Sometimes it reminds
me of You know who. Seeking the "magic".

What you see is what you get

These brethren are for strict literal interpretation
and refuse to delve beneath the surface. They are the
opposite of the above and are so afraid of being led
astray that they don't get led at all.

You need to go to Bible school

These brethren refuse to entertain any thought that
does not come from "professionals" and those who
have studied a long, long time. It is comfortable as
it was when the Hebrews demanded a king so they did
not have to deal with personal responsibility.

If it feels good, Do It

A kind of interpret as you go, free in the Spirit,
kind of whymsical technique.
------................-----.................------

In short we fight over whose experts and whose evidence
and take offense at each other and give Satan a
jolly good time. The Word of God is " living and active"
and well beyond our feeble attempts to contain it in a
neat little box. Jesus came down on the Pharisees for
attempting to use the Word to enslave. He spoke in metaphors
largely so we wouldn't repeat those mistakes. If Jesus put a
new heart within you and said that no man need teach his brother
saying "know the Lord" then the Holy Spirit is more than able
to direct us. We know that we shouldn't lie, but if you were hiding someone
from persecution would you lie? Would you say, "yes he is here
take him away"? I believe the Word allows for the greater good.

The Kabbahlists and Rosicrucians who believe in mystic secrets
within the Word, are they wrong? I don't believe they are, but
they attempt to steal the knowledge through intellectual means.
I tell you that the mystery of Christ is that as we digest the
Word it becomes uniquely applicable to each person's walk within
the framework of loving God and loving your neighbor. Each of the
Apostles had slightly different points of view and so did the early
church fathers and yet each sought to further the kingdom. The
diversity created a stronger church. The beauty of the Word is
that it can accomodate us, it is alive, and whatever answer
you arrive at in good conscience after seeking God's direction
is OK.

BUT you must seek. You can't be afraid to look below the surface
a little. Listen for His voice, and pray about what you hear.
Examine the Scripture as well as the writings of
the faithful before you for clues, but finally follow what you hear from
God in your heart. Don't use your freedom as an excuse to abandon
His guidance however. "A just weight is a delight to the Lord."
You've got to have balance.
Whenever in doubt, pull back to those basics that you have
firmly entrenched in your heart and reevaluate. Every so often
you will find yourself with a new perspective. And finally, if
you look back and see that you have messed up,know that you can't
change the past.Learn from it and go forward. Each day is a new
opportunity tolove God more fully.

In the words of that old song, yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.
====================================
===From: IBM/CYRIX 6x86 Machine <cathy@ezonline.com>

Now THIS makes sense (as a timid newcomer...)

=======================================

From: JThomas945@aol.com

To Bigmac55

Agreed:

Augustine said something like: "Unity in the essentials, liberality in the
non-essentials, charity to all".

There are many things that I believe are "gray" in the Scriptures. Speaking
in tongues, Escatological positions, even Arminianism vs. Calvinism are all
issues for honest debate & disagreement among Christians but these and other
similar positions are not worth dividing over. The essentials: Christ's
deity, incarnation, substtutionary death, resurrection from the dead,
ascension into heaven and return at the end of the age cannot be questioned.
Another essentials would be the inerrancy of the Scriptures. There may be
more but these are building blocks of our faith and they should be guarded.
..."guard that which has been entrusted to you".

I believe that the different denominations and non-denominational churches
that exist within "the pale of orthodoxy" are God's creative means of
expressing Himself in this
lost world. The mistake is made when one says: I am better than you "because
I am an eye I have no need of you..." (1Co12) I believe the "body passages"
apply to denominations as well as local bodies of believers. Guard your
hearts and love one another.

In Christ,
JT
=====================================
HELLO NEIL

From: Symmetor@aol.com

Dear Owen:
Sin is not counted where there is no Law. (Where there is no law
there is no transgression).
Only this emergent abomination, the democrat, by whose rejection of
discretion and discrimination all of the worst things march unopposed through
a society, has erased the distinction and the natural double standard that
applies to male and female, to the fostering of all the disorder and
uncleanness of the churches.

Neil
===================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>

> From: Symmetor@aol.com
>
>
> Only this emergent abomination, the democrat, by whose rejection of
> discretion and discrimination all of the worst things march unopposed through
> a society, has erased the distinction and the natural double standard that
> applies to male and female, to the fostering of all the disorder and
> uncleanness of the churches.

How do we get in touch with Austin Powers now that we need him?
=====================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

On 07/04/99 00:29:42 you wrote:
>
>From: Symmetor@aol.com
>
>Dear Owen:
> Sin is not counted where there is no Law. (Where there is no law
>there is no transgression).

I don't get it here Neil. It sounds like you are saying' " We
have been set free from the law of sin and death."
This would appear inconsistent with your earlier stuff.

=============================================
Dear Rick: I was answering a question about how the righteousness required of
God's people is not required of the heathen, the reason being that 'from him
to whom much is given, much will be required'. Those were little pieces of
Paul's letter to the Romans that I was quoting, concerning those outside the
hearing of the law. The ancient Biblical Christians were similarly free from
the law, except in their case righteousness reigned through the Holy Spirit,
freeing them from it by their implanted nature to keep it, whereas death (not
hell, which is for the knowing) reigned over the ancient heathen whose
unregenerate nature was to violate it without knowing. These things all have
their counterparts in the church worlds which were to follow, so that the
rude, shallow, heterodox Christians who trample everything without a thought
are the equivalent of the ancient heathen, to whom very little has been
entrusted; these are relatively 'free' from the deeper requirement, because
they are ignorant of it; the reformed, conscientious, observant Christians
are the equivalent of the ancient Jews, to whom significantly greater things
have been entrusted; these are versed in the Holy Scriptures and dwell in a
gnawing fear of God and a consciousness of sin, with a vague expectation that
Scripture will somehow be fulfilled; finally there are those who are the
equivalent of the ancient, Biblical Christians, who are ascendant and
enlightened, and free from the fear and insatiable conviction that
characterize those who are the 'Jews' of the church; these have been born not
only of the water of the faith, but also of the wind; they are no longer 'of
the earth', but of heaven. They are not without law toward God, but they are
free from the condemnation inherent in the Christian Scriptural regimen, free
from that which continues to enslave their brethren (who have a zeal for God,
but an unenlightened one). These three types of denizens of the new creation
have their images in the sea (the heathen), the earth (the Jews), and the
heavens (the Christians).
          So Final Christians are free from 'church' in a high, true,
enlightened way; whereas the faint-spirited are free from 'church' in a low,
rude, careless way. Those in between are, obviously, not free from 'church'.
          I hope this clarified some things. Please write again if it didn't.
God bless you, brother.

                   Neil
========================================
CONSCIENCE
From: Owen
        Dear All
       In OZland we were led to believe that conscience was the inerrant voice of God. I have since found out otherwise. Absolutely NO other authors that I know of teach that conscience is inerrant. Granted this is a weak claim to make since few teachers say much about conscience.
        I can think of three teachers (Chuck Colson, CS Lewis, and the young guy at Redeemer) whose offhand comments about conscience shocked this ex-munchkin. They spoke of conscience as something that is developed and formed by the individuals environment. Something learned (a product, of the times and the family) not something revealed straight from the mouth of God. Something subjective and not absolute. And they treated their statements as self evident (meaning that there's no fiery debate on the subject). BEV: do non-Christians treat conscience as inerrant??
        This makes sense because some Christians had a clear conscience about owning slaves, while others feel guilty about eating dessert. David had a clear conscience about killing Goliath (and slaughtering 2/3 of his Moabite prisoners), while others feel bad about killing a mouse. Paul in Romans 14 spoke about the difference in peoples conscience. (About eating no less!)
        One of the rules OZ handed down (at one time [87]) was "obey your conscience". Well our conscience then was (partly/mostly?) formed by OZ and his munchkins. (ex Did those sisters in princeton feel guilty about illegally dumping chemicals into the Princeton sewer? Or would they have felt guilty for being argumentative by questioning the great OZ?) Still unconvinced? Just contrast your present views on privacy with your views back then. Still unconvinced? When did you first feel troubled about eating a meal???
        OZ wrote up the conscience workbook. Did anybody else ever write a whole pamphlet on conscience?? (That would be interesting (to us) research.) Does anybody still have the conscience workbook?
        As for that verse in Isa. ("your ears will hear a voice...") who knows what it refers to. Let's read that verse in context. (Read that whole chapter.)
                    And by my Lord I'll get there
         Owen Camp    Bronx NY    dococ@prodigy.net
========================================
Owen D Camp wrote:
They spoke of conscience as something that is developed and formed by the individuals environment. Something learned (a product, of the times and the family) not something revealed straight from the mouth of God.         This makes sense because some Christians had a clear conscience about owning slaves, while others feel guilty about eating dessert.
Jimmy used to boast he would drive over the speed limit with a clear conscience.
I followed him in a van once, and almost lost it on a turn. He liked going about
80 and I had to keep up with him.        One of the rules OZ handed down (at one time [87]) was "obey your conscience". Well our conscience then was (partly/mostly?) formed by OZ and his munchkins.
He gave us the tools, and we each constructed our own little prison in each of our
individual heads. He gave the general statements like "you have what's important
to you..." And we took it from there and filled in our own unique situations.
We could not destroy our own custom built cage. Escape meant going against this
fortress we had fortified so well. Which was almost like going crazy.
==================================
Owen D Camp wrote:

From: Owen Something subjective and not absolute. And they treated their statements as self evident (meaning that there's no fiery debate on the subject). BEV: do non-Christians treat conscience as inerrant??
Hi Owen and all.
Non-Christians covers a lot of ground (most of the planet) - since that means Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, polytheists, and a lot of other people. I can't claim to speak for everybody, so I'll speak for myself.

I would agree with the idea that conscience is something that is developed - and hopefully, continues to develop all one's life. The one law of Wicca is basically the golden rule - If it harms no one, do as you will. However, even though I have long believed and tried to practice this, I know I am better at it now than I was ten years ago - not perfect, by a long shot, but *better* at perceiving what will hurt people, and avoiding it. I hope to be more perceptive and sensitive another ten years down the road, and then another... And there is no comparison to the days when I was in COBU, and like we all did, took an emotional sledgehammer to everyone around me - I certainly didn't mean to hurt others, but I know I did.

Sometimes you can't help hurting people - or hurting them in the short run. For example, you take your baby in for tetanus shots, even though it hurts him, and he doesn't like it, because it is the best thing in the long run. Often decisions are not black and white. Do you pass over a job promotion because a co-worker who would also like the promotion and additional money? Then perhaps you are hurting your own family, because YOU could use those additional funds to get braces for your kid, or start his college fund. What if you know you are better qualified and more deserving of the promotion, yet you also know your co-worker is in dire financial straits and really NEEDS the raise? You have to make a choice over who gets hurt - and most of us are not so selfless that we are living in our cars and giving all our rent money to build shelters for the homeless. Should we feel guilty about this? (Actually, sometimes I do.)

Some people (Christian or not) seem to have a conscience that's flexible as play-doh. I have witnessed people (Christian and non) commit acts that seem to me to be as far from 'right' as can be, yet they seem to be smugly confident that they are 'good, conscientious people.' I don't think anyone's conscience, Christian or not, can be said to be free of error. In fact, when someone claims to have a conscience that's fully developed, that he never does anything wrong, because 'God' or his conscience or the guidance of the Holy Spirit ALWAYS stops him first - those are the kind of men and women I try to stay away from. I think that all we can do is the best we can, and when it becomes painfully obvious (or before then, if we are wise enough to realize it) that we have made a mistake, do our best to make amends and not repeat it.

- Beverly

=============================================
well said, bev!

<3 rosie

life is a journey, not a destination.
========================================
From: HMWSAILING@aol.com

Hi Owen, Read ROM 2:14-15, it shows that The innate morality given us by God
mixed with the sinful nature (flesh) & sinful environment (world) violating
it form our unregenerate conscience. It is by the work of the Holy Spirit
through regeneration (HEB 10:22) & the renewing of our minds (ROM 12:2) that
our conscience begins to operate correctly (HEB 5:14).
This shows our conscience does change with the amount of
light received
& that's a gradual process (2 COR 3:18) & to that light we must remain
faithful. Some are weak in the faith (knowledge of the Truth) & believe in
all kinds of things that they think important to living the Christian life,
which in reality mean nothing to God (ROM 14:17). For example while in Cobu I
believed drinking alcohol at all was
a sin. After leaving Cobu & examining the scriptures more closely I found
alcohol
not forbidden but drunkenness & being addicted to it, needing it to function
in life is
what's aimed at in Scriptures. So my conscience was changed by the truth of
the
Word.

Herm Weiss
======================================================