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 ...
I think you’re assuming your conclusion.
The problem with the idea that we have to repent of sin before it's forgiven is that I'm sure there are times where I sin and do not even realize it at the moment. Or even later. Everything I do is corrupted and stained with sin. I doubt there's a thing I do with absolute pure motives.
In light of that, it's just not possible to confess each and every sin that one may or may not have committed.
Besides, repentance can be a general repentance from the tendency to sin as well as repentance from a certain sin that has been plaguing one.
And we're commanded to confess our sins and we will be forgiven.
So in repentance for my sinfulness, I come to God and He offers full pardon. I confess my daily sin as I am aware of it to keep the lines of communication open, not to regain salvation because I lose it every time I slip and fail, as all humans are wont to do.
Really ?/ then why did you need to ask me to prove it with scripture?
You church teaches that all baptism is not with water.. so how redundant is the Nicene creed?
not even with a hamburger?
So Paul ..a prophet of God as he spoke for God in penning most of the NT mis-spoke for God on THIS important issue???
You are sadly mistaken. Although Scripture refers to other symbolic Baptisms, particularly of Christ, but for all water baptism is essential. The exceptions are for catechumens who die before their Baptism, (their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament), the invincibly ignorant, and children who die before baptism.
Metmom, I think you expressed this very well. Mad Dawg, this answer of hers combined with your previous post about God giving apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, evangelists, etc., for the building up of the church, got me thinking about this:
In the first decades after Christ ascended back into heaven, the Apostles and disciples went out to preach the gospel, disciple others, build up churches and establish the true doctrines of the Christian faith that Jesus taught as well as what God further revealed through them. At that time, they were the ones who had the authority to speak for Christ and he confirmed that by giving them the ability to miraculously heal, raise the dead, cast out demons, etc.. Those were the "signs" following them whereby people knew they were speaking for Jesus. So, until the New Testament letters were written and distributed, that, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, was the ONLY way new believers could receive that "milk" and then "meat" of the doctrines of the faith.
Now that we have the completed scriptures, as well as the Holy Spirit which indwells all those who by faith accept Jesus as Savior, the "need" for some of those offices has disappeared. I do not believe that there are legitimate Apostles anymore - regardless of what some denominations say (and it isn't JUST Catholics who claim such). Therefore, the authority that they were given has been replaced by the Holy Scriptures that they wrote down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and have been preserved all the way down until even now. That is why the earliest of the church fathers stated that whatever they spoke must be guided by the Scriptures.
Now, even though there are no more Apostles OR prophets, that leaves the teachers, evangelists, pastors, etc. to continue to edify and build up the ever-growing church, the body of Christ, and train up future teachers and pastors as well as teaching and leading the flock. As Metmom says, the believer has the Scriptures as a check-point to what they are being told by their church leaders. Those leaders have the responsibility to train, edify, correct, exhort and encourage those whom God has place under their care. AND, they also answer to God for the fulfillment of those duties.
Did I miss the Scripture that calls St. Paul a prophet or are you confusing him with Joseph Smith?
So there is no “baptism of desire”?
The Reality Lies Beyond the Shadow
The system of laws first showed how to recognize the various violations of purity. Then the priest examined the situation to confirm the presence of impurity and he provided instructions for cleansing. Later, after the physical cleansing was completed and after the impurity was eradicated, additional rituals were performed for ceremonial cleansing. When all of this was completed, the priest could finally declare that cleanliness had been re-established.
Through our "20/20 hindsight", the parallel becomes obvious. The law (whether written on stone for the Jews or on the heart for all), convicts man of his unrighteous, dead condition. The man can then choose to go to the true Priest in order to be cleansed from all unrighteousness and gain eternal life. It's the same Priest –Jesus– who gave him the law, who examined him, who sprinkled him and who declared –and continues to declare– him righteous.
A Curious Irony
Jesus began His ministry with a miracle –water which became wine. You might ask, "Why there were six stone jars for cleansing in the story?"
•Six is the number for man –he was created on the sixth day.
•The jar represents man's earthly body.
•Stone –or rock– represents God.
•Clay is what man was made from.
All of this is to demonstrate that the vessel that would provide the ultimate cleansing was going to come in the form of a man –a jar. And that man would be God –stone. If man could provide his own means of purification, the vessel would have been made of clay –like man himself. And Jesus is the stone upon which His church is built.
He changed the water into wine because water is not sufficient for cleansing. Remember the last supper when Jesus explained that wine represented His own blood? Purification must be accomplished using blood. When His mother told Him to make more wine, His reply was so revealing. "My time has not yet come." It would be a few more years before His day on the cross.
It's ironic that His ministry started on a wedding day where He changed water into wine. And on His last day of ministry –when He was pierced for our transgressions– out of His body –the true cleansing jar– flowed those same two elements. They came in reverse order –blood was followed by water– to show that everything was accomplished. His ministry started on a day celebrating the fulfillment of a wedding promise; Now we look forward to our own wedding day –as His bride!
Actually, Paul DOES make one exception:
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
The "Baptism of Desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Although discussed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas it was decided upon at Trent. If you believe that this and what I posted in post #3727 why don't you tell me what you think that is.
I'm not a big subscriber to any numerology-like discoveries in Scripture. With 20/20 hindsight we can always assemble unrelated facts into an unintened mosaic. We must always look at Scripture through the lens of the times they were revealed.
So Jesus lied to the "good thief?
You wrote:
“What you posted did not do what you claimed it would that beliefs/faith/doctrines imposed by a college in no way guarantees observance.”
That’s exactly what I showed. Those colleges had standards. They were not observed.
“In both links you gave the professors in question were not permitted to continue to teach or their book was banned. Your claim was first to slam Moody, then when someone stuck up for them, you switched to your backup of denigrating ALL Protestant Universities.”
False. Stating where the professor is from is not slamming Moody’s. No one needed to stick up for them in the first place. The prof was the one with the problem.
“Are you pretending that there are never such occurrences within the Catholic university systems?”
Nope. The difference is that no Protestant authority can make a sensible case for standards in orthodoxy in light of the fact that Protestants are not orthodox.
“ARE there an Catholic universities anymore that adhere to the Church’s teachings?”
Yep.
“It is the height of idealist based denial INDEED.”
I have exhibited none.
“I suppose your nasty repartee makes you imagine others will fear to disagree with you, but, you would be quite wrong.”
I really don’t care if anyone disagrees with me. My repartee is no more nasty and is far less nasty than the continual distortions anti-Catholics post here.
“All bark, no bite. All bluff and bluster. All the time. No love of Christ in evidence.”
I have never seen you evidence any love for Christ.
You wrote:
“Wow....now you have got to prove that statement because that is way out in left field!”
It is not even remotely out in left field.
You wrote:
“You have any more proof of that than your comments about Moody?”
I never needed any. If the Protestant author was lying about it, then it’s on his head, not mine. I have no reason to believe he was lying, but I cannot prove he wasn’t.
You wrote:
“Well, they didn’t check their tradition to find out if those things were so...”
Sure they did. No interpretation of scripture is possible without some sort of tradition. The understanding of books - even the Bible - cannot exist in a vacuum.
Did you take your adopted son back to the adoption agency when he didn't tell you he was sorry for something???
Or did you take him back to the agency when he refused to untie his shoes before putting them on, or did you work with him until he finally got it???
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
We can use our logic all day long, or, we can look see what God says about it...
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.