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 ...
Well we do have our opinions and base them by Gods Word...correct?... So somebody’s wrong about purgatory...which Jesus never spoke about...and why would HE...He set us free, certainly not ‘into bondage’ to man made traditions and false teachings....all of which he warned us about.
There are Priests who believe women should be allowed to be Priests and Priests who believe sodomites should be allowed into church leadership roles. We could go back and forth like this for days and only appear spiritually ill prepared. Paul scolded people who claimed to be following a fallible leader. Those who call themselves followers of the Pope, Luther, Calvin, or any other fallible human or belonging to any group lead by a fallible leadership are in the group that Paul would have been talking about.
There are individual leaders or spokesmen of every denomination or church that will be in error on given subjects or theology. That is why the only true foundation for what we should believe is the written word of God. No amount of spoken word handed down by fallible humans can possibly be trusted. Try having a story go through a hundred individuals and see if it’s the same exact story that the last person hears. I can’t be done.
John the Baptist had ONLY water. Baptism means water. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins means water and the Holy Spirit, but it always means water.
here’s what you’re avoiding in the Book of Acts:
36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized? “ 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. (NIV).
Would you please show me from official Protestant teachings that that is a “principle of Protestantism”?
"For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision MADE WITHOUT HANDS (Spiritual), in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision OF CHRIST: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him THROUGH the FAITH of the OPERATION OF GOD, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; BLOTTING OUT THE HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES THAT WAS AGAINST US, WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO US< and TOOK IT OUT OF THE WAY NAILING IT TO HIS CROSS." (Col. 2:9-14).
So, what does this say?
1.WE are complete in Christ .
2. We are circumcised (set apart) by Christ .
3. We are buried with Him in (spiritual) baptism .
He has forgiven us all (not some) trespasses. .
5. ALL ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN BLOTTED OUT-DONE AWAY WITH. .
ALL ORDINANCES: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and DIVERS WASHINGS (baptism) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Heb. 9:10.
The "all ordinances that were blotted out" gave way to the NOW there is ONE BAPTISM BY THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST that Paul preached.
Here’s another protestant author who substantiates Paul as the author of Hebrews.
I’m curious as to whether you and smvoice agree with these writers, or not and if not, why not. I don’t expect an answer from either of you, however, because in my humble opinion, you are not well educated enough in scripture to come up with one.
This is eerily exactly the same with islam, lds, and other religions who abuse Christian verbiage or twist it to substantiate what they want their followers to "submit" to. It makes it difficult at best for people who want to leave to do that...to them it would be unimaginable to even consider as we have seen here on FR.
We as Protestants have great freedom to choose where we go...if the wrong people obtain leadership in a church we are free to leave at any time, generally after all efforts to dislodge the hold on leadership and the wrong dire ction that leadership is taking the church.
Frankly in todays church climate I see a great deal of sifting...as churches not only drift away from solid teaching, but worse are incorporting other paractices and beliefs of a pagan nature within it's walls and which Jesus would have never allowed within His church.
I agree that water without the Spirit is not baptism.
The Apostles physically baptized with water as Jesus commanded them to do.
Jesus told them, “Unless one is born of water AND the Spirit....
And also, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
Of course for us the Magisterium is the chief hermeneutic of Scripture. But with that in there I can assent to the first statement.
The rest is contentious, assuming what you seek to prove. We find plenty of hints about some purgation offered not in spite of the complete redemption worked by God in IHS but as an aspect of it.
Not to argue, which is useless without more understanding, but to suggest, what do you make of Ephesians 4:13. What is the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ?
What is the “perfect” (I guess Paul means complete or finished) man?
Which man is morally better, the one who coasts or the one who walks? (What does it mean to walk in the good works God has laid out before us?)
I would view human perfection as being enabled and permitted to share in the work of the perfect Son of Man, to be able and allowed to be a co-laborator (in the subordinate sense of ‘co’ discussed earlier.)
So to me the Either/Or you pose is not persuasive. I think there might be another choice.
Such a dynamite verse smvoice.....worth enlarging on it's meaning for it covers much of his "finished" work.
Here’s another protestant author who substantiates Paul as the author of Hebrews.
http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb002.html
I’m curious as to whether you and smvoice agree with these writers, or not and if not, why not. I don’t expect an answer from either of you, however, because in my humble opinion, you are not well educated enough in scripture to come up with one.
1 Cor. 1:14 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.
So you can see that he did indeed state that he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Why would he baptize them if he was the one who claimed it was unnecessary or indeed that “all ordinances had been blotted out” including baptism? He obviously didn’t believe it was going back under the law if he himself baptized.
++++++++
They have been convinced that to question is to commit a sin and since only their leaders can forgive their sin and get them all the way to Heaven, they have been controlled by fear and dread of what can be done to them at the whims of this hierarchy.
++++++++
That’s pretty much a cartoon version of the Catholic Church.
So what do you invision flowing “out o fhis belly” in the following verse?
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water
Then to expand and include the explanation of what the source of that "water" is.
John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
You begin with the very problem catholics have....as long as catholics adhere to that without question then all else will be viewed thru that prism.
Further Jesus was very clear His work was "finished" at the cross .... "Debt paid in full" stamped across the pages of sin before a Holy God.
Hints of purgatory are not even that in scripture when one understands Christ's finished work....but when an individual 'believes' they must someow work toward establishing their own redemption or admittance into heaven then of course an easy thing to locate scripture to "hint" at what they want to 'believe'.
We don't walk according to the law and ordaniances of men.....we "let" Christ live His life thru us...based on our relatioship with Him and a knowlege of His written word.
It is a walk of "faith"..... "The just shall live by faith" Purgatory means a walk under the law and ordinaces which were completely fulfilled in Christ....He is and was and will always remain the "perfect" man. Either God was saatisfied by Christ's work or not...there simply is no middle ground.
What we need here is a chart, showing which Epistles and letters written by Paul were WHERE in the transition period of Acts. What was written as long as Israel was being dealt with as a nation, and what was written after they were set aside. I'll see if I can find something. It should make it easier to see. Maybe..:)
As long as the catholic Priesthood is given the power to forgive sins by it’s leadership, and it’s membership ‘believes’ that they do...then how can they possibly accept Christ’s words.....’No one can come to the Father except by me”....for they have bypassed the only way for forgiveness by ‘believing’ a Priest has that authority.
WAIT A MINUTE! Here I am, searching for charts, when the answer is right here in the Scripture we are talking about. 1 Cor. 1:14. It is THE PERFECT example of the transition from law to grace, the Acts period. Paul baptized at first, during the transition, until the dispensation of grace was fully revealed and Israel was set aside. Then he “thanks God he baptized so FEW, for Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to PREACH THE GOSPEL.”
First, I’ve never formally been taught this eisegesis, so I cannot state with certainty that it as the doctrine of the Catholic Church. If there is error, it is mine. I am intentionally keeping this brief, which may add to error. I began this thought process after reading in the Catholic Doctrine of Atonement developed in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Which stated:
“Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2). “
This doctrine provided me with a context in which to read and understand many parts of Scripture, including some that I posted in this thread (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Timothy 2:6). Throughout Pauline Scripture sin is represented as a state of bondage from which man is delivered by being redeemed, or bought with a price. "For you are bought with a great price" (1 Corinthians 6:20). " and “they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were (slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” (Revelation 5:9).
In the context of the Doctrine of Atonement, the Atonement is the deliverance from captivity by the payment of a ransom, a ransom that Jesus paid with His blood.
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.