Antinomianism, definition and a Question "is this you"?
- By Tom8907
- Sabbath and The Law
- 2 Replies
Sadly too common today and if you obey Chrust you're a "pharisee".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hello! You're right 1.5% was an old figure from a previous UK Census. The last UK census in 2023 gave 3.8% identifying as gay or queer, 10.4% of 18-24 year olds. Still hugely less than the 41% of content on Netflix which means Netflix are promoting an agenda not representing demographics. Their agenda seems to be working, the number of people identifying as homosexual is increasing. God BlessFirst, it's more like 9%.
They do but I thought it was interesting how well-done the similarity was considering the length, and not reading off anything.So you went to the vigil Mass and then the Sunday Mass the next day?
Priest usually gives the same homily at the Masses they celebrate that week-end.
This is what I think, too!If pay diligent and close attention to the words of Yeshua we can see the Paul was on his own, starting from a poor foundation in Acts 15, as stated in the article. The Apostle John understood all this if you read 1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be manifest that they were not all of us." As stated in the article also, Paul never quotes Yeshua at all other than 2 Cor 12:8-9, where the context is questionable anyway. Since when does Satan have a duty to buffet people for being prideful? He is the very author of pride from the very beginning, if you look at Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:17. And since when did Yeshua extend his grace to cover the sin of pride? These things don't make sense and I'm clearly not the one to say we need to discard Paul's gospel, but I do know for sure that we need to adhere closely to the words of Yeshua, and hold onto them steadfastly no matter what, especially if there are conflicts from other sources. Thanks. Bob
Macarthur said: " the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and laid hands on the converts.I'll Quote Macarthur for context. on these passages in Acts. If you can give me your thoughts on this.
" the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and laid hands on the converts (Acts 8:17). In that unique transitional situation as the Church was beginning, those particular believers had to wait for the Holy Spirit, but they were not told to seek Him. The purpose for that exception was to demonstrate to the apostles, and to bring word back to the Jewish believers in general, that the same Holy Spirit baptized and filled Samaritan believers as baptized and filled Jewish believers--just a short while later Peter and a few other Jewish Christians were sent to witness to Cornelius and his household in order to be convinced that the gospel was for all men and to see that "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also"(Acts 10:44-45). Those special transitional events did not represent the norm, as our present text makes clear, but were given to indicate to all that the body was one"....
"Why did the Samaritans (and later the Gentiles) have to wait for the apostles before receiving the Spirit? For centuries, the Samaritans and the Jews had been bitter rivals. If the Samaritans had received the Spirit independent of the Jerusalem, that rift would have been perpetuated. There could well have been two separate churches, a Jewish church and a Samaritan church. But God had designed one church, in which "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female," but "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:2.)...
By delaying the Spirit's coming until Peter and John arrived, God preserved the unity of the church. The apostles needed to see for themselves, and give firsthand testimony to the Jerusalem church, that the Spirit came upon the Samaritans. The Samaritans also needed to learn that they were subject to apostolic authority. The Jewish believers and Samaritans were thus linked together in one body....
Today, believers receive the Spirit at salvation (cf.1 Cor. 12:13). There was no need for delay after Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, and Old Testament saints were already included in the church. (Macarthur)
Today...
"Being filled with the spirit must be distinguished from being baptized with the spirit. The apostle Paul carefully defines the baptism with the spirit as that act of Christ by which He places believers into His body (Romans 6:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27). In contrast to much errant teaching today, the New Testament nowhere commands believers to seek the baptism with the Holy Spirit. It is a sovereign, single, unrepeatable act on Gods part, and is no more an experience than are its companions justification and adoption. Although some wrongly view the baptism with the Spirit as the initiation into the ranks of the spiritual elite, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the baptism with the spirit is not to divide the body of Christ, but to unify it. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, through the baptism with the Spirit "we were all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13; cf. Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 4:4-6)
Unlike the baptism with the Spirit, being filled with the Spirit is an experience and should be continuous. Although filled initially on the day of Pentecost, Peter was filled again in Acts 4:8. Many of the same people filled with the Spirit in Acts 2 were filled again in Acts 4:31. Acts 6:5 describes Stephen as a man "full of faith and the Holy Spirit," yet Acts 7:55 records his being filled again. Paul was filled with the Spirit in Acts 9:17 and again in Acts 13:9.
While there is no command in scripture to be baptized with the Spirit, believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18 ). The grammatical construction of that passage indicates believers are to be continuously being filled with the Spirit. Those who would be filled with the Spirit must first empty themselves. That involves confession of sin and dying to selfishness and self will. To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to consciously practice the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ and to have a mind saturated with the Word of God. Colossians 3:16-25 delineates the results of "letting the word of Christ richly dwell" in us. They are the same ones that result from the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:19-33). As believers yield the moment by moment decisions of life to His control, they "walk by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16). The baptism of the Spirit grants the power that the filling with the Spirit unleashes." (Macarthur)
Really? I have not ran across that yet.Now there are reports coming out that Nick Reiner was attempting a "transgender conversion" and was pumped full of synthetic hormones in preparation for a sex change. Whether the hormones had anything to do with driving him over the edge is unknown.
This is not part of the canon of Scripture, so whatever merits it may have, even however 'inspired' it may be, it does not belong in a Bible.This text internally is written by the apostles in Jerusalem. It contains phrases like I Peter, me Peter, I Mathew , we apostles.Didascalia Apostolorum
Didascalia on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.www.earlychristianwritings.com
Epiphanius Salamis 300s AD said it was written by the apostles like it said. So I believe it was written pre 70 AD, and is inspired scripture. It is a lot like the Didache which also internally dates to before 70 AD but Didascalia is a lot longer. It is on audiobook here
Login to view embedded media
Here is chat GPT summary of the teachings of the text
The Didascalia Apostolorum presents itself as apostolic instruction, spoken in the collective voice of the apostles with Peter as chief spokesman, addressing how Christian communities are to live faithfully before God; it teaches that believers are no longer bound to the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, emphasizing instead moral obedience, repentance, mercy, and care for the poor, while portraying the bishop as a shepherd and physician who must govern gently, restore sinners, and guard the community from injustice; the text regulates church order, family life, sexual conduct, the roles of women and widows, almsgiving, and discipline, consistently stressing that authority exists for healing and salvation rather than punishment, and that Christian life replaces temple sacrifice with prayer, charity, and faithful endurance amid opposition.
It uses the word Catholic which means universal. There is no Mary worship in the text. It says Peter was buried in the Vatican
Chat GPT
In the first century, there was no “Vatican” as an institution and no St. Peter’s Basilica. The area now called the Vatican was simply Vatican Hill (Mons Vaticanus)—a low hill outside Rome’s sacred boundary (pomerium) on the west bank of the Tiber. It was largely non-urban, used for gardens, cemeteries (necropolis), and imperial leisure. Under Caligula and Nero, a large chariot-racing stadium—the Circus of Nero (or Circus of Caligula)—stood there. According to early Christian memory, Nero executed Christians in this area, and Peter was martyred nearby, traditionally buried in the adjacent necropolis. That grave became the focal point for later veneration, which—centuries later—led Constantine to build the first basilica over it (4th century).
Summary: In the first century, the “Vatican” was a geographic location tied to imperial Rome and early Christian martyrdom, not a church state or headquarters; its later significance grew because of Peter’s burial, not because it already held authority.
Oh okay. I misunderstood when you said you suspected that the actual number [of what? total or recent arrivals?] was "higher rather than lower" without specifically saying higher or lower than what. I just assumed you were referring to the number mentioned rather than some unspoken, unknown. My bad.I didn’t say anything about 20 million. If you believe that is the total amount of illegal immigrants in the country I believe that the number is higher than that. I wouldn’t try to guess what the actual number is
The 'clarification' muddied the waters considerably AND actually backfired in raising interest in a very tiny aspect of Marian devotion. Sure, some Protestants will be excited. But it is not an 'advance' as much as a confusion from a very confused and confusing prelate. Diane Montagna asked Fernandez about this in an interview and he retreated to say that we can believe what we want about Mary but for Vatican purposes they just won't say it. It would have been far better to do exactly what pope Benedict did, to rather quietly say that nothing new could yet be defined. OR to have the balls to say that it was just wrong to even think Mary was a co-redemptrix if they thought that to be the case. What we got was weaselly doublespeak confusion. Not an advance. One of the worst sorts of retreats.Some Protestant scholars who spoke with CNA welcomed a Vatican document that clarified titles for the Blessed Virgin Mary that discouraged the use of Co-Redemptrix/Co-Redeemer and put limits on the use of Mediatrix/Mediator.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) issued the doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis on Nov. 4. It was approved by Pope Leo XIV and signed by DDF Prefect Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández on Oct. 7.
According to the document, using “Co-Redemptrix” to explain Mary’s role in salvation “would not be appropriate.” The document is less harsh about using “Mediatrix” and says “if misunderstood, it could easily obscure or even contradict” Mary’s role in mediation.
The document affirms Mary plays a role in both redemption and mediation because she freely cooperates with Jesus Christ. That role, it explains, is always “subordinate” to Christ, and it warned against using titles in a way that could be misconstrued to mitigate Christ as the sole Redeemer and sole Mediator.
Catholic reactions have been mixed, with some seeing the clarification as helpful and others defending the titles as consistent with the understanding of Mary’s role as subordinate and asking the Vatican to formally define the doctrines themselves rather than simply issue a note on the titles.
Positive reactions from Protestants
Continued below.
![]()
Some Protestant scholars welcome Vatican document clarifying Marian titles
Some Protestant scholars welcomed a Vatican document that clarified titles for the Blessed Virgin Mary.www.catholicnewsagency.com
“It’s never too late to fulfill a dream.”
I don't think there's anything wrong with going on a pilgrimage to Israel. Some people will draw closer to God just by physically seeing places that are in scripture and walk where Jesus walked. Is it "required", no but I wouldn't condemn people who want to do it either.Great points!
We don't need to grow spiritually by going on a 'pilgrimage' to Israel, we are fully equipped to spiritually grow through reading God's word, prayer and joining a local Gospel church.
The body of Christ is Israel, not the nation that calls itself Israel.
I agree. People give Pastors/Priests/People FAR too much credit and treat them as if everything they scripturally say is truth instead of letting God teach you. And I also agree that this idea that ethnic Jews are somehow superior/better is gross. It's propping up a country that is 98% lost (and that's being considerate) and condoning behavior that you wouldn't give to anyone else. We should be praying for their salvation, for them to turn to God, for them to see that just because they are born Jewish, does not automatically mean they are the "light of the world". They lost that title when they failed to do what they were supposed to do, which is why the torch was passed to the gentiles.And let the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth. And do not give your worship and undying devotion to any human being or people group, but give all your worship and devotion to God alone, to Jesus Christ who is the one who gave his life up for us on that cross so that, by God-persuaded faith in him, we will now die to sin and obey our Lord and his commands in practice, and have eternal life with God.
That doesn't mean Gentiles can now go to heaven, it means that gentiles are now the ones who teach salvation. Hence why Paul was sent to the gentiles and taught how to start churches. Our view towards Israel should be to try and save them so when Jesus comes, He can claim His inheritance that was started all the way back in Exodus and rule and reign from Jerusalem. All of Israel will eventually be saved:"Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious." - Romans 11:11
Meaning, spreading the gospel to the Jews via the gentiles will eventually save them. This is the meaning of the blooming of the fig tree (Matthew 24:32-33, Mark 13:28-29, Luke 21:29-31). When their faith blooms and they finally turn to Christ."I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.'" - Romans 11:25-27
Sadly all the Confessions of Faith of major Christian groups claim you are wrong. I can't ignore all of Christianity just because you don't like their claim that in the first century the Sabbath commandment was edited by traidition to point to Sunday instead of Saturday. This is true of the example list I provide in the signature line in every post I make here.this is a loaded question. The Sabbath is not Sunday. Sunday is not the Sabbath (so please stop presenting it this way).
The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".
page 243
"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"
I have a new thread on the antinomian idea that some are so fond of. You might enjoy that thread
Antinomianism, definition and a Question "is this you"?
Definition for "Antinomianism" AI: Antinomianism is a term used in Christian theology to describe the belief that, because salvation is granted by divine grace through faith, believers are not bound by the moral law of God, including the Ten Commandments. The word itself comes from the Greek...www.christianforums.com
Using the NT to preach a 10 commandment system is counter-gospel
Trump was stupid if he thought he could deport tens of millions of people in four years anyway. What he should do is just deport if they get caught otherwise breaking the law, OR if they apply for assistance as long as they are pulling their own weight and being productive let them be.