Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
smvoice
So is God’s Word the FINAL Authority to you or not?
Some of the postings I have read here are almost funny, they are so off the wall.
Take one verse, any verse, and make it your own personal magisterium. Amazing isn’t it?
I have no doubt as to the sincere motives of Catholic parents in having their newborn infants baptized. Nevertheless, we arrive at problem two from a Scriptural viewpoint: the practice is unbiblical. Parents cannot decide for their child that he/she will receive God's gift of salvation and be born again. The Bible teaches that each person must make his/her own choice:
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12,13.
Infant baptism misleads Catholics as to their true spiritual condition and need by producing a false hope. Catholic children are taught early on that baptism has removed their original sin and infused them with sanctifying grace. Their proof of this? a baptismal certificate issued by the Church showing that the sacrament has been properly executed. Problem three: no biblical Scripture supporting this.
Now to the questions I have for you: If Justification is by water Baptism...
1. Why didn't Jesus baptize anyone (John 4:2)
2. Why did Jesus tell the repentant thief on the cross, who was never baptized, "truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).
3. Why did Cornelius and those who were with him receive the Holy Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:44-48)
4. Why did Paul say, "For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:17)
5. Why is baptism left out of so many verses explaining salvation, such as "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16).
And the final question: Exactly what was baptism for in the OT?
Of course, in all these "baptism" Scriptures I am speaking of water, not the Spiritual baptism into the body of Christ.
Well, I recall that you had written something about this earlier but after so much discussion I can’t recall the specifics of your theory.
If you would care to give the number of that previous post or repost now, I would be interested in hearing it.
No time to think about it now, must be off to dinner.
Will be looking for your response in the AM.
First of all, yes, I do believe in the doctrine of Eternal Security. It is based upon clear and numerous Scriptures that state a person is saved by God's grace APART from their own works. When God says he cannot look upon sin and sin will have no place in Heaven, then the real question MUST be, "How do we get cleansed of our sins so that we can enter Heaven?" The answer is, we are cleansed of our sins by the precious blood of our savior, Jesus Christ. Only by the shedding of blood were the sins of those in Israel covered when the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies once a year and offered the blood of a spotless animal upon the Mercy Seat. This was a sign of the Messiah, who would shed his blood for the sins of the entire world and it would no longer be only a covering, but a payment in full. By his shed blood for our sins, those who received him, believed in him, were cleansed of all sin.
God said over and over that it is only by blood that atonement is made. So when we meet the Lord in Heaven, we have already been made pure and clean from any stain of sin. If it was based upon our own works like, holy living, confessing our sins, receiving communion and other good deeds or refraining from sin, then the whole purpose of Jesus shedding his blood would be in vain. In Galatians 2:21, we read, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”. We are NOT saved by our merit but by the sacrifice of Christ for us by which we receive the righteousness of God in Christ. His blood is what makes us clean and that cleansing is satisfactory in the eyes of God.
Isaiah 1:18 18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
It says what it means and means what it says. Paul says he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. If there was a gospel that included baptism for the remission of sins, then Paul certainly was not preaching it, as is clear from what he says. He THANKED GOD he baptized so few. Can you imagine Peter or the 11 thanking God they had baptize so few? Of course not. So we have to come to grips with who Paul is, what he was saved for, and what gospel he was sent to preach. It most certainly did not include a command to be baptized. If anyone cares to read Paul’s words honestly and as they are written, and not want to interject their own religious teaching into the passage. It says what it says. And it says it for a reason.
I’ll post you back with the specifics. Have a nice dinner!
“First of all, yes, I do believe in the doctrine of Eternal Security. It is based upon clear and numerous Scriptures that state a person is saved by God’s grace APART from their own works. “
You are probably quite secure because you are probably not a huge sinner. I don’t know just remarking.
But, what if you did something really wrong? You have been saved, (you said the sinners prayer or whatever it is you did) you still believe in Jesus but, you do something really wrong. Where is your salvation? Are you still going to heaven? You just said that a person is saved by God’s grace APART from their own works.
I think I’d rather not take that chance if you don’t mind. I would rather have been saved, am being saved and will be saved on my last day. That I persevere to the end living out my salvation. And going to confession. It’s a good thing. lol
Which is ironic considering the Catholic church teaching on free will.
Jesus already said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as children. Most non-Catholics consider that children are considered covered by Jesus' blood until they reach an age of personal accountability when they must make the decision for themselves.
Of course, with the Catholic teaching about Limbo, which also has no Scriptural basis, Catholic parents are terrified of taking their newborns somewhere lest something happen to them before their baptism. And I've met plenty of them.
If I can get to a “hotspot” tomorrow, I’ll give your questions my best shot. “For my sins” I am on the “Parish Pastoral Council” AND I have a bunch of administrative work to do for this coming Easter’s crop of converts.
AND I’m moving house — which I simply hate.
These are very good questions. Thank you.
I agree with you on this. The Roman soldiers would most likely have written the sign in Latin in the Old Roman cursive (also called majuscule cursive) that the Apostles and Disciples would not have been familiar with. The translation was probably derives second or third hand. Were more precision require the Holy Spirit would have made it happen.
Ngtia: How many of your sins were future when Christ died for them?
Only God knows.
Actually, I'm secure because God states it in His word and I know that God cannot lie.
John 10:27-30 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 21And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
2 Corinthians 5:4-6 4For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,
Ephesians 1:13-14 13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
But, what if you did something really wrong?
James 2:8-11 8If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Sin is sin. God hates lying as much as he hates adultery and murder.
Sin is conceived in the heart before it shows in the actions. Jesus said that if you hate your brother it's the same as murdering him; if you lust after a woman, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart.
This business of degree of sin is unScriptural. There is no difference. One sin is all that it takes to condemn someone to hell. If all a person did was commit one sin in their entire life, they'd still need Jesus' blood shed for them for forgiveness of it. And the rest of their perfect life would not be enough to pay that debt and earn, or ensure them a place in heaven.
So what good works is it that you feel God requires of you to complete your salvation and how do you know that you did them all, did enough, or did them adequately, with pure enough motives?
Even if you add your works to the blood of Christ, how do you know it's enough? That ends up putting you back in the same position you were in in the first place, which you wanted to avoid, having to completely trust only in the finished work of Christ on the cross alone.
Sin is sin. God hates lying as much as he hates adultery and murder.
So are you going to hell if you lie? Or are you still saved?
And you must have missed my point that I was agreeing with your statement: "Some believe that God chose these apparently contradictory passages to illustrate that we cannot rely upon the entire Bible EXCEPT in its unified context, not individual versus and snippets. However, I do not agree that God puts anything in Scripture that IS contradictory. I have spent many years in the study of Scripture so I do not believe that there are any REAL contradictions. But, remember, Jesus said that he spoke in parables so that those who refused to have their eyes and ears opened would NOT understand them.
As for your Episcopacy of the Catholic Church being students of the Bible, I'd have to say they are YOUR Episcopacy, I would hope that it matters to you that they are students of the Bible.
Only GOd knows? My dear friend, ALL your sins were future when Christ died for them. Unless you were born before His death. They were ALL future. And He died for ALL your sins.
I am saved in spite of my imperfection. Jesus’ blood covers all my sin.
When I put my trust in Him for salvation and believed what He said, Christ’s righteousness was imputed to me. God did not credit to my account the sin which I commit but credits to my account the righteousness of Christ.
I am forgiven for everything, all sin which is past, present, and future for me.
When Jesus died, ALL my sin was future. None of it had been committed yet as I hadn’t been born yet, and still, Jesus’ blood was sufficient to forgive it.
I am part of God’s family, adopted into it. He is not going to disown me because I slip and fall. I am still His child. He promised, gave me His Holy Spirit as a seal, a promise, a guarantee of that which He gave me. He told us so through His word, so that we might KNOW that we HAVE eternal life. 1 John 5:12
After all that God did to bring me to Him, He is not going to let me go that easily. He died for me, He called me, his Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin, he opened my eyes to see the truth of His word, He gave me the desire to know Him, He determined the exact time and place I should live to that it would be easiest for me to come to Him and know Him. He did everything except make the final decision for me because He’s not going to force Himself on me. Love isn’t love if it isn’t freely given.
I love Him because he first loved me, and that even includes when I sin.
Sin may break the lines of effective communication between me and my Father, just as disobedience in a child breaks the lines of communication between that child and his parents, but those parents don’t throw their child out of the house because they did something wrong. He didn’t cease to be their child. I don’t cease to be God’s child when I break the lines of communication either. The relationship is strained, not severed.
Scripture simply does not paint a picture of a God who is so capricious as to zap everyone the minute they make a tiny mistake, as the Catholic church teaches.
First of all look who Paul is writing to.
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:
These are Christians who have already been baptized in all likelihood.
He then, after giving thanks for them and exclaiming that they exhibit Gods grace, mentions some contentions have arisen among them.
Verse 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
He’s exhorting them to be of one mind when it comes to Christ. He’s beginning to talk about what the contentions were and how he heard about it.
Verse 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
Then mentions the differences.
Verse 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Here he defines the differences that the people are having. Some are “bragging” about who was the one they were “following”. It seems evident that the people had split into factions by who they were “converted by” and who they were “baptized” by. Remember that he is talking to Christians who had already been baptized.
He then goes on to indicate why the people were claiming to follow different leaders. He then says he is glad that he wasn’t the one to baptize many of them because they would be claiming to be followers of his instead of followers of Christ and he wouldn’t want that.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Paul is simply using the example of baptism as the reason people were proclaiming to be followers of different men, not that he didn’t baptize but that he didn’t baptize many of them.
This passage can not be use to show that Paul believed baptism was unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.