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 ...
They mock us when we speak of the indwelling of the Spirit...So of course they would claim things like Nicene Christianity...
They have no choice but to follow man...They admittedly, are void of the Spirit...
They are the natural man that Paul speaks of, which we once were...
Their knowledge of scripture is purely intellectual...Man's wisdom...
Darn! I just wrote this brilliant response. And promptly lost it.
For us (would-be) schoolmen, the operative phrase is “prevenient grace.”. God always makes the first move, and every move is the first.
For moi the operative text is what IHS said to Peter at Caesaria Philippi: flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
Still, the word “willing” is important and has implications. “... both to will and to work ...”
Well it certainly is too...Just compare each line with what the word of God actually says...
So when some ignoramus says they choose "Christianity" at the exclusion of the Nicene Creed it has to be a different religion all together
It is a different religion althgether...It's Bible Christianity...
Exodus 19:5,6: "Now therefore, If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my convenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."Priests of the Lord; men shall call you Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves."
Matthew 3:1-6: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea. And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Colossians 2:9-13"For in Him dwelleth all the fullness 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, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism (spiritual) wherein also ye are risen (spiritual) 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."
(Colossians 2:14): "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."
(Ephesians 2:15a): "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES..".
(Hebrews 9:10): "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and DIVERS WASHINGS (baptisms) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
(Ephesians 4:4-6): "There is ONE body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of you calling. One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
You wrote:
“Would you please show me from official Protestant teachings that that is a “principle of Protestantism”?”
No. I will simply state the principle and then you can accept it or deny it. If you deny it is a principle of Protestantism, then you will look like a fool. The principle is sola scriptura.
You wrote:
“That’s nonsense.”
Well, I no longer remember the publication, but it was a Protestant author writing in a Protestant publication for other Protestants. The chance of dishonesty might have been high with such a set up as that.
“Moody is a revivalist school and would not contenance anyone on their faculty with that belief. It would be contrary to their statement of faith.”
So you say. Should I believe you or the guy who got the edited and reveiwed article published in a Protestant publication?
Only when you refuse to read God's word the way He had it written do you fail to understand God's word or His plan for mankind. "The Gospel". You seem not to have read the "the Gospels" listed in the Bible. Nor do you seem to have an appreciation for the reason God designated them differently, by using different names for those gospels. But go right along, ignoring the plain words of God. He says what He means and means what He says. It's man's puffed up pious smug attitude that says He can't have meant that. THIS is what He meant to say. It's your life, NL. Live it the way you think God may have meant it to be lived.
Of course we use scripture as we are instructed.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
And frankly find many Catholic teachings “not so”.
The Gospel of God is the Good News of which the Gospel of St. Paul is but a supportive subset.
Since St. Paul and other authors of Scripture had not finished their works had obviously not completed his writings, and the Canon of Scripture still lie in the future, exactly what "scriptures" did the Thessalonians search daily?
The Good News of WHAT? There is LOTS of good news in the Bible, as all those “gospels” attest to.
Is still talking about water baptism as evidenced by verses clearly showing that baptism is symbolic for being buried and raised with Christ.
14 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;
The old ordinances were against us. We could not possibly follow them without breaking them. All the old ordinances condemned us. The new promises eternal life.
One baptism yes, symbolized by water baptism.
Thanks for that link, JA. I have never doubted that it was Paul who God inspired to write this epistle. I agree with the author of this article and have saved it to my Favorites list.
Nothing in Acts praised sola scriptura. Checking scriptures is not the same thing as scripture alone. See how quickly Protestants resort to intellectual dishonesty?
You tell me. Were you there? In paraphrase it says the checked to see what they were being taught by Paul and Silas was true by the scriptures available to them. They were commended for not just taking the word of even Paul and Silas. What Paul and Silas would have been teaching and preaching would have been Christ’s death, resurrection and the promise of salvation through Him. There would have had to have been something they called scripture written for the Bereans to “search daily” wouldn’t there.
You’re welcome. I don’t understand metmom and smvoice’s problem with it.
“It’s not *game playing*, JA. It’s a legitimate question. If you claim that Paul is the author of Scripture, you need to provide authoritative Scriptural proof of that fact or it’s you who have no credibility, not smvoice.
I guess they don’t believe part of the bible was inspired by God.
Just as I figured, another missing washer in your Sola Scriptua construct.
Romans 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Romans 3:9
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
Romans 10:11-13
For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Thanks for your comment. I never mentioned that I was targeting any one religion and agree with you that this kind of spiritual "blackmail" is one of the telling signs of a cult. In some of them, the person who decides to step away is very often ostracized from all their friends and even their own families.
Paul commends people for “searching the scriptures daily to see if it is so” checking to see if what he, Paul, teaches is so is not suggesting to go to scripture for proof of what is being taught? What other sources did Paul suggest to use?
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.