Rick Santorum returns to his Christian roots
After breaking out this week as a surprise conservative standard-bearer in a trio of Republican primaries, Rick Santorum returned Wednesday to the role that helped him build a national reputation in the first place: uncompromising Christian conservative champion.
Rather than following up his Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado wins with a trip to the next set of primary states — Arizona and Michigan — Santorum spoke before a group of Dallas-area pastors, casting himself firmly as the one reliable culture warrior in the 2012 field. He heads to Oklahoma tomorrow.
For a candidate who has spent much of the last year trying to prove that he’s about more than just social issues, Santorum’s Texas trip may look like a strategic detour. While Santorum’s credibility on the Christian right helped him prevail in the Iowa caucuses, his stump speeches have often focused instead on revitalizing U.S. manufacturing, and the candidate has sounded most exercised talking about foreign policy and the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But with a series of political flare-ups — over the Komen foundation’s ties to Planned Parenthood, the White House’s regulation of religious hospitals and a judicial ruling striking down a gay marriage ban in California — bringing social issues to the political fore, Santorum’s ironclad cachet on the conservative right could suddenly become an invaluable asset.
Continue reading at www.politico.com
Santorum has returned to his Romish roots not Christian roots as he is a Roman Catholic.
-KalevWhat kind of Christian could be voted the most corrupt politician of 2006?
-davesI would guess any type could. After all that does fit a large number of them and it really depends on the Voters agenda don't ya think? I don't trust sources until they are fairly verified think about that one for a while..
-decarlisleThank-you! I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. In catechism classes we were clearly instructed NOT to call ourselves Christian. We were to be separate from the Protestant "movement". It was to be condemned as false. The best the Protestants could hope for was purgatory.
Almost every dogma and practice of the Roman faith is starkly opposed to the biblical Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to the point of blasphemy against His glorious finished work of salvation. The fact that so-called Evangelicals would hook up religiously with the likes of Santorum speaks volumes about their own understanding of Christ.
-far2rightThank you, now I know when a Catholic is asked if they are a Christian they say, "No, I am a Catholic."
-msjallenFar2right, One thing I am greatful for, is that at least the catholic church stood up and told the government that they will not do what they want then to and would be willing to be prosecuted for it if they had to be. That helped the rest of us to stand up too…as they want to bring all religions down. But, I too know about the catholic church [ done a lot of studying into its past and it wasn't good ] and if one reads and studies two scriptures they will learn how God feels about it also. Revelation 17: 1 and Revelation 19: 2. Further study of those scriptures will take you into more than you will believe. And it leads to something else coming.
-marieRevelation 17 is so descriptive of the Catholic church it gives me goose bumps. Interesting is that while the seven mountains where the Harlot sits represent seven kings, at the same time, tourism brochures reference to Rome (the seat of the Vatican) as the City of the Seven Hills. The biblical reference to her drunkenness with the blood of the martyrs tells the story of the inquisitions and events like the ones depicted in the movie The Mission.
-MexseikoOK Kalev, then attempt to keep an open mind and see if his walk matches his talk. As you know will happen, now that it's his turn as a top contender, the liberals will start their aggressive digging campaign and mudslinging in hopes of knocking him down. If his actions and deeds from the past were ever questionable, it will surface. This is a fallen world, according the Bible, so don't expect the author of all that is evil to let something slip by. You can also expect to hear half truths, so don't give up Santorum on the first layer of false accusations. BTY: I'm a Baptist, and I fully believe that there will be a lot of Catholics and many other Christian believers in Heaven! And since I'm at this, you might want to study good influences that the Catholics have brought into world, in the name of Christ. I know that have a lot of ugly elements, but truthfully, don't we all. Praise God, through Jesus, we are all forgiven.
-tsw-bnaHe brought his dead child home to show his kids they had a sibling… That is horrible!
-Deep_ThinkerNo, it is THERAPEUTIC and TRUTHFUL.
-VinnyYa, I'm sure an image of a dead baby had nothing to do with his theocracy… The guy is a joke. He will surely start WW3, end contraception as we know it, and be the moral enforcer of the century.. Catholic hypocrite, warmongering sleezeball…
-Deep_ThinkerI disagree with you. My little sister was born at home. The doctor said she died a couple days before her birth. After my sister's birth the doctor took my sister to the funeral home and she was placed in a little white casket and returned to our home, that was the practice at the time back in 1948. I remember clearly being outside playing and wanting to see my little sister and going inside the house and pulling a kitchen chair over to the casket and climbing up on the chair and raising the lid of the casket and looking at her. She was so beautiful. The memory I have of my little angel is with me to this day. I wouldn't take anything for this memory. One day I will see her again and what a great day that will be.
-Carol GreenThis didn't happen in 1948…And the baby wasn't in a casket at the time.. And besides, the guy has horrible policy despite..
-Deep_ThinkerI am sure it did happen in 1948 and the baby was in a casket…..when I was eight my grandfather was 'brought home' for the family to sit up with him the night before his funeral, my grandmother had him placed in the
-GAnana'front room' so that any family members who wanted to sit with him could…..he was in his casket, and I slept with her, across the hall from the 'front room' …..this was 1960. and it was customary in that time to bring the deceased home for this vigil. I remember it well, and I was not mentally affected by this, never gave it a second thought.
I'm talking about Rick Santorum bringing the baby home, was not in 1948..
-Deep_ThinkerIt never ceases to amaze me the wisdom of some people, who can tell you exactly how you are wrong in your life' decisions!. O' to be so wise!!!
-evermyrtleIt will be a big hurdle against Obama, and I also don't want to vote for someone who claims to be Christian, but is more hungry for war than all the rest…
-Deep_ThinkerYet, there are Christians who practice that policy every day of their lives.
-Jeff DixonThank you Carol Green, for such a beautiful story!!!!
-evermyrtleIf you believe that to be a beautiful story, please do not ever volunteer to tell children stories.
-Jeff DixonWhat is "Romish?" Romish is not even recognized by my spell check as a word. But I tell you this: we believe in the same Lord, the same Faith and the same Baptism. Now I ask you, by what authority did Martin Luther reject 7+ books out of the Christian Old Testament canon and instead accept the canon of the Jewish Rabbis, formed centuries after Christ? And by what authority do Protestant denominations ignore 1Timothy with regard to Holy Orders? A man cannot declare himself a bishop or a presbyter; only a bishop can ordain a bishop or a presbyter (that's in the Bible- Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus, ordained by Paul, and Paul was giving Timothy instructions about how to ordain ministers).
-myth busterNope, you do not believe in "the same baptism" that is taught in scripture, since you baptize infants who could not possible "repent." Candidates for baptism are those persons who are indeed able to repent. See Acts 2:38)
The heretical practice of infant baptism was brought into use after another heretical belief was created, namely the doctrine of inherited depravity ("original sin"). The "reasoning" went like this: if, indeed, infants were born in sin, something had better be done quickly to obtain forgiveness of that sin or those infants, should they die, would go to hell. Thus evolved the un-Biblical concept of infant baptism.
-bighossCite a source in antiquity to support your position. No such controversy ever existed. The only controversy over infant baptism in antiquity was whether or not it was permissible to baptize infants younger than 8 days. Furthermore, original sin most certainly is a biblical doctrine. "I was conceived in iniquity," says the Miserere (Psalm 51). "Unless a man be born from above of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God," says the Lord.
-myth busterHaving been raised protestant, I will weigh in on this, seeing as I no longer believe in infant baptism.. Protestants believe in infant baptism, and the main thing Luther changed with religion is that good works don't get you to heaven, as true Catholics believe. See his 95 theses if you really want to know the differences.
Now back to infant baptism.. I have struggled a lot with this one, and I have never seen such weak evidence for something practiced so widely. Jesus was baptized, yet he was without sin. Kids are born into sin, but they do not know what sin is, hence Jesus said, let the little children come to me, for the kingdom of god belongs to such as these.
As to your verse above, baptism does not guarantee anything, otherwise Jesus death is pointless… In fact, the only thing that matters is those who believe. And if you want to talk about order, How about, all those who BELIEVE and are baptized will be saved, but all those who do not BELIEVE will perish. Hence he doesn't say if you don't get baptized you will be saved. Baptism is a symbol of your new life in Christ. It is not a means of salvation. Infant baptism didn't even start till the 2nd century.
-Deep_ThinkerIt was not necessary for the scripture to say "He that believeth not and is baptized not shall be saved." Simple logic tells you that if you do not BELIEVE, then you will not be baptized.
Read the first 10 verses of Romans 6 and read them as though you were reading them for the first time and then ask yourself if you can still believe baptism is not essential to salvation.
-bighossAnd yes, a controversy most certainly existed, because those who followed Luther, but also broke further away from him were called the Anabaptists.. They did not believe in infant baptism. Look them up. There was a huge controversy.
-Deep_ThinkerCatholic bashing is so productive.
-JamesNO, it is exhausting, since there is SO MUCH in Catholicism to "bash:!
-bighossYes, it is time to move on to bashing the Mormons and then the Jehovah Witnesses and don't forget to bash the Muslims as well. Of course, the Atheists need to be bashed, as well as the Jews and all the Protestants who believe wrongly. Oh, and the gays. By gosh, do not forget to bash the gays. Then you can start over again with the Catholics. It is important for all the groups to get a sound thrashing in rotation. That is much more productive than worrying about the economy or world peace or the quality of our children's education or the upcoming election.
-Jeff DixonSanitarium… If he has gone back to Christian roots, great! Good for him! But his policies still are intrusive, unconstitutional, and scare me more than any other RINO on stage..
-Deep_Thinker@Deep_Thinker: Apparently you wouldn't know a RINO if one bit you in the butt…nor the constitution. Me thinks you aren't such a deep thinker after all, but a surface liberal.
-FLCitizenAnd you are basing that conclusion off of what? I am a libertarian, but a theocratic warmonger like Sanitarium scares me just as much as the redistributionists on the left…
-Deep_ThinkerIf you are seriously interested in the history of the Catholic Church then I highly suggest your reading: TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop. This book is published by Kessinger Publishing's Rare Reprints. It was first published in 1916. Even though it is a history book you will find it very informative with a realistic world view that supercedes our biased PC world view today.
-Melvin EllisIt is the authoritive book on the Roman Catholic Church, it should be required reading for every Protestant.
-KalevIf it were true, Catholics would not be slandered by every force that is hostile to God (not accusing you of being in their number, but rather those such as Planned Parenthood and the Communist Party). After all, the Devil doesn't wage war against his own kingdom, but rather against the Kingdom of God. You can discern the genuine from the pretender by observing who a man's enemies are.
-myth busterWhile you're at it Melvin, why don't you check out "The Babylon Connection?" by Ralph Woodrow. Woodrow first believed what Hislop wrote in "Two Babylons", and in fact he also wrote a book "Babylon Mystery Religion" which agreed with Hislop's view. However, Woodrow later discovered Hislop's research and reasoning were both seriously flawed. That is why he wrote "The Babylon Connection?", in order to reveal these flaws.
-BillSantorum will have hard going if, as is likely, he continues to assert that artificial contraception is "dangerous." He will doom his campaign if he continues to push this issue. The great majority of Catholic women of child-bearing age favor artificial contraception, so it becomes a bit artificial to submit a "religious" argument against contraception on the basis of a Catholic doctrine that has failed to find acceptance among something like 95 percent of Catholics! The bishops need to work on their flocks before they work on the gummint on this issue.
-bighossYes, but the point of the First Letter of St. Paul to the Bishop Timothy is to provide Timothy (and by extension, all other bishops) with instructions about ordaining clergy and consecrating religious. Paul was instructing Timothy to ordain clergymen (bishops, presbyters and deacons) if they have proven themselves fit for the office, and went on to list the criteria for ordination: must be a man devoted to the Lord, chaste, not married multiple times, not a drunkard (though drinking in moderation was permissible), and otherwise disciplined. Furthermore, bishops were not to have been recently baptized, lest they become puffed up in arrogance. As I said, only a bishop can ordain; no presbyter who is not a bishop can ordain anyone else, nor can a man ordain himself.
With regard to Scripture, I will spell it out for you. The canon of Scripture was finalized in the 4th century by the ecumenical councils. It included 73 books (46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament), and the books of Esther and Daniel were longer than in the KJV and all other Protestant Bibles today. Martin Luther, and all Protestants after him, however, contravened 1200 years of precedent and declared that the Jewish rabbis, rather than the Christian bishops, had identified the correct Old Testament canon, which included only 39 books. And these were not rabbis from before Jesus walked the Earth, either, no they were Pharisees who rejected the Septuagint for being too Christian. So I ask, by what authority did he or anyone else say that The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Baruch and Tobit, as well as the codicils of Esther and the codicil and appendices of Daniel were not Scripture?
-myth busterThe same way anyone has ever claimed to be inspired by god. They made it up.
-Jeff Dixon