The Greek word “huiothesia” translated “adoption” occurs five times in the N.T. (Rom.8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal.4:5; Eph.1:5); and is a compound of two words in the Greek; the first is (tithemi, G5087), which has the meaning “to assign or appoint”; the second is (huios, G5207) meaning “son”. This is the biblical theme of the (beracah) blessing of the (becorah) First born right; this motif runs throughout scripture; and it concerns abundant life, and a position of preeminence in the house of the farther, which is rewarded for being an obedient son (Gen.12:1-3; 22:16-17; 25:1; 27:3-4, 7-8, 26-38; 49:1-28;cp.37:2,14;cp.2-14;48:9-22;49:8-10;cp.44:33-45:3).The “huiothesia” takes place at the time appointed by the father; it is the time when the son is appointed as ruler over all the father’s house (Gal.4:1-2; Mt.24:45-47; cp. Rev.2:26-27; Ps.2:8-9;89:27); when he receives the blessing of the firstborn right (Rom.8:17, 29); the “reward of the inheritance” received by the matured obedient image bearing sons (Col.3:10, 23-25; cp. 1:9-12, 28).

We know from Old Testament scripture that the birth right, along with its blessing can be forfeited for disobedience (1Chron.5:1-2); to which the apostle Paul gives heed to the child of God (Eph.5:3-6), even giving examples from the O.T.(in the context of reward i.e. using words like: prize, race, run, and crown) warning us not to lose out on the inherence, as did the Israelites in the wilderness, figured by not entering the promised land (1Cor.9:24-10.1:10; Heb.12:1, 15-17).

It will be necessary to gain a proper understanding of how the word for “son” (huios) is used (in the context under consideration), being the root of “huiothesia”. In doing this, we will also look at two other words; that have different meanings in the Greek but have (like huios) been interchangeably rendered “child” or “son”. Making it difficult for the reader to see the differences of meaning, thinking they are one in the same. Which has resulted in confusing the “huiothesia” to be what takes place at the time one becomes a child of God (becoming a member of Gods family); instead of being the reward of the inheritance (Jn.3:16; Col.3:24; cp.2Tim.2:10-13).

The first word is (tekon, G5043) which should be properly rendered “child” and has the meaning of producing, to bare, to generate, and is used of one who is born; this words theological usage refers to when one becomes a child of God, upon placing faith in Christ (Jn.1:12; Rom.8:16). And has wrongly been rendered “son” in many occurrences in different bible translations, not making the distinction of when huios is being used.

Huios “son” has the meaning of being full grown, or maturity; and is used in a conditional sense (in the context under consideration), which rest upon the believers walk as being led after the spirit in obedience: “for those who are led by the spirit of God, these are the sons (huios) of God”; this speaks of the child of God who images the character and wisdom of the father, “pray for them which despitefully use you,…..that ye may be the sons (huios) of your Father which is in heaven….Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons (huios) of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Rom.8:14; Mt.5:44-48; Lk.6:36).

The second word (nepios, Gr3516) has the meaning of immaturity, or adolescence, rendered “underage” (Gal.4:1, NIV) “nepios” is in contrast with “son” (being full grown), and is used of the carnal believer, as babes in Christ, not skillful in the word of God (1 Cor.3:1; Eph.4:14; Heb.5:13).

Now lets us look at the scriptures where “huiothesia" is used: Rom.8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons (huios) of God. 15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear (of eternal judgment, under the law); but ye have received the Spirit of adoption (now having been justified from the law, now have the hope of the inheritance set before them). whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children (tekon) of God: 17and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together ….23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Romans 8:23 clearly states, without a question of a doubt that the “huiothesia” is the future hope of the believer “waiting for the adoption (huiothesia), that is the redemption of the body". Here Paul equates the timing of the adoption to be when the body is redeemed, which takes place at the appearing of Christ (Phil.3:21).

Rom.8:23, allows us to see that the similar language in Ephesians, is indeed associating the “huiothesia” with the future hope of the believer; and is not what took place once one came to faith in Christ, and became a child of God (as entering Gods family), as it has usually been understood due to the English translation “adoption”. Let’s read in Ephesians: “Having predetermined us unto (eis) adoption” “you were sealed with the holy spirit…. which is the earnest of our inheritance until (eis) the redemption of the purchased possession” “whereby you are sealed unto (eis) the day of redemption” (Eph.1:5, 13-14, 4:30). These scriptures along with Rom.8:23 are clearly teaching that “huiothesia” is a future event that takes place at the appearing of Christ, when the believer receives his inheritance (2Tim.4:8).

Gal.4:1 Now I say, if the heir is underage (nepios), he does not differ at all from a slave although he is lord of all, 2but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3So also we, while we were underage, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5So that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the(huiothesia) adoption. 6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

In v.5 it says, “that we might receive the (huiothesia)” “might receive” is the Greek word (apolambano, G618) and is used in Col.3:24 “you shall receive (apolambano) the reward of the inheritance.” And in 2 Jn.1:8 “but that we receive(apolambano) a full reward”.

Here In Galatians “nepios” is used of the spiritual condition of those who were previously under the law; being servants to the spiritual powers of sin, they were in an adolescent state, or infant spiritually; and how through faith in Christ, they are now full grown “sons” ( nepious is here being used in contrast with “son”, huios); because Christ has redeemed them from the law; they are now impowered by the spirit unto perfection, no longer slaves to the powers of sin, but “sons” in Christ (Gal.1:4;3:2-3, 22; 4:1-7).

Paul is using the imagery of Israel’s servant condition still under the law covenant; with the Hellenistic cultural practice of Paul’s day, in that, while the adolescent was under guardians, until the time appointed by the father, he was no different than a slave, though lord of all. likewise in the fullness of the time, Christ came to redeem those under the law (guilty and powerless); that they may now enter the inheritance and may be lord of all (Mt.24:46-47); the end of the ages had come up them (1Cor.10:11;Rom.13:11), and they were expecting the return of Christ, and by the power of His spirit would they walk worthy of their calling (Eph.4:1), and enter the kingdom with great reward (2Pet.1:11), assigned as His ruling sons (huiothesia).

The context of one rendering themselves being dead unto sin in Romans 8, is for the reason that they may partake in the adoption on "the day of redemption" (Eph. 4:30) at the coming of Christ, and be first to enter the Kingdom, obtaining salvation with age abounding glory at the appearing of Crist (Mt.21:31; 2Tim.2:10), this will be a resurrection of reward (Lu.20:35; Heb:11:35).

Redemption in this context is unto the inheritance, of How God has purchased us with the blood of Christ, for us to have the right to Gods spiritual life, generating us as His children (being born form above), for the purpose of impowering us to live as righteous sons to walk worthy of our calling, that we enter the inherence, as His ruling sons (adoption).

So, sanctification would allow one to be worthy to partake in the redemption of Gods inherence (the called-out company) that He will rule through, as themed in the Old Testament with Isarel.

We cannot be set of track from rightly dividing these truths, the unfaithful believers will not partake in the adoption, they will lose out on the inheritance of the blessing of the firstborn right. But being heirs of God, they still have the promise of life and will be raised after the thousand years, but these will not be those who partake in the first resurrection, which is a reward for obedience (Rev.20:4-6,12-15). Also note that each company in the bible has its own adoption, and it is also themed as a corporate event in the O.T. (cp. Rom.9:4).

Hi everyone, I am a Professional Film Maker and also solid Christian who has been in the motion picture industry for over 30 years. I've worked as staff at the International Christian Film Festival as well as on several good quality Christian Films and TV shows as well as major Hollywood Movies and TV series. Over many years I've also lived in Los Angeles off and on briefly and I had taken a year off to spend time with family in Australia post covid.

I'm at a crossroads where I could stay in my comfort zone in Australia and get back to work on major US studio movies being shot down here, but it seems God may be calling me back to Los Angeles.

I have spent a lot of time in Los Angeles praying for God to send missionaries into the studio system, but to also draw out film professionals who are Christians to train up the next generation of Christian filmmakers who are called.

All of the messages I've been hearing lately have been saying about getting out of your comfort zone and trusting God, which I've done many times before with Youth With A Mission. Yet this time the move needs to be permanent which leaves me under no illusions about what that involves in moving back to Los Angeles. I was there in 2020 when they were threatening to invade homes in our neighborhood etc.
I'm really needing to network and need God to really confirm and solidify things practically if He is indeed calling me back to L.A. I'll need a home, a car, and good praying work.

So I want to ask for prayer, for God to really provide confirmation if He is indeed calling me back. For things to solidify everything I need to make the move and any wisdom or words from God that you might hear from God regarding this call.

What is indulgence, really?

It is to show mercy, to extend forgiveness to one who has done wrong and to accept them back into the community of God's people.

It is described by saint Paul in is second letter to the church in Corinth

2 Corinthians 2:5-11

Can one buy mercy, is it possible to purchase forgiveness, is it possible to bribe your way back into favour with God?

I think not.

The Catholic church thinks not.

Some groups claim they are against religious liberty . One of those that appears to me to oppose religious liberty (as seen on this board board) is the Catholic church (and a few others).

It appears to me that they are arguing that religious liberty would result in a lot of confusing doctrines - no standard of pure doctrine. chaos.

IT also appears to me that they shoot their own argument in the foot while making their case.

========================

If you really believe that no one should use free will, religious liberty - to make up their own mind about what is right or wrong -- then you can make no appeal to a non-Catholic to accept Catholic doctrine - since choosing to do so would require that the person reject their own church magesterium and tradition -- evaluate arguments to the contrary - and make a choice against the teaching, direction, approval of their own respective magesterium. The very thing you say - should not be done.

In Acts 17:11 we see people doing that very thing. Rejecting the tradition, authority , doctrine of their magesterium and switching from Judaism to Christianity by "studying the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

That means that there is only one logical view - and that is the one for religious liberty where individuals decide for themselves.

UNLESS we find someone here saying "I believe in doctrine 'X' because my Catholic church tells me to - and since you are not Catholic and I believe you have no religious liberty - I think your only option is to conclude that the Catholic teaching is in error - your own group is has the correct view and you should believe as you are instructed to by your group's magesterium regarding the existence of religious liberty and free will" -- we don't even have a test case to evaluate the existence of a no-religious liberty proposal. They violate their own proposal each time they argue that their view is the right one and others should be able to see the point.

But we never see that. Because that does not work.

The very existence of a board like this and the discussions we find here - even by those who claim there is no religious liberty or else there "should be no religious liberty" proves over and over that religious liberty is in fact the only option.

====================================================== for the sake of a point of reference

EWTN on "the problem of religious liberty"


"

The Problem of Religious Liberty: A New Proposal​

Author: Thomas Storck

THE PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: A NEW PROPOSAL
Thomas Storck

" We are all likely familiar with arguments of this sort, arguments made in varying ways by theologians who refuse to accept all the teachings of the Church's magisterium.1 When pressed for specifics, moreover, the two points on which they generally allege the Church has changed her doctrine are the licitness of usury2 and the question of religious liberty. And if the magisterium really has changed on these issues, then it is hard not to concede to them their point. For if the teaching of the ordinary magisterium on usury or religious liberty has changed over the centuries because of changing social conditions, then why not teaching on contraception or divorce? Therefore, it seems to me of the greatest importance for orthodox Catholics to be able to demonstrate that the Church has never changed any point of its magisterial teachings nor can she."

...

"How widespread in time and place must a teaching be found before it becomes "universal," for example? In the case of religious liberty we have the teachings of at least four popes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, most of them speaking in formal documents such as encyclicals, and seemingly speaking at variance with the doctrine contained in the Vatican II document <Dignitatis Humanae> (Declaration on Religious Liberty). We should be curious, to put it mildly, to understand how the Church could seem thus to contradict herself when proclaiming God's truth. Yet if all efforts to solve the problem are not successful, it is possible that, despite appearances, the earlier teaching on the subject was not part of the Church's "ordinary and universal teaching," and therefore the problem is more apparent than real. But if it is admitted that the teachings of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII on the subject of religious liberty are part of the ordinary magisterium, then we must by some means show how their teaching was not changed in 1965, when the decree on religious liberty was adopted.

In a nutshell, the teaching declared from visions (White and another congregant) was that those people who reject the doctrine of the (original) "Investigative Judgment" back around 1844 or could not be saved, they were irredeemably reprobate . The original Investigative Judgement was a teaching that Christ's work to atone sin was not completed at the cross, but that Christ needs to make Atonement for sin later in the "heavenly sanctuary". This version of the Investigative Judgement is much different than the one of today, which is closely linked to Sabbath Observances (Christians will be judged by God considering how they kept the 10 Commandments especially the one regarding the Sabbath). The doctrine of Investigative Judgement has evolved with time based on White's life experience and visions, the Church trademark distinctive of Sabbath worship and preaching on the Sabbath was not their original teaching but lifted after folks read a pamphlet from an English Sabbatarian group from the early 1600s who taught on it "convincingly" and became the model for Adventism's later approach and preaching on the topic today.



I was reminded by the second video that the start/beginning of the "Shut door" prophecy/ teaching was the narrow path vision that I linked below for people to hear if for themselves. I'm a newbie to this topic so there may be flaws in my understanding and presentation, but I do take comfort because in studying this and learning that this was the case for Ellen White herself! According to her own testimony later she seems to have not understand the original nature of her prophesy according to the official Adventist sources (The teaching was later altered based on her claims to this affect).

Login to view embedded media
There is a point of logic that I wasn't clear on previously "The Door was Shut" for Salvation etc. because according to the original prophesy and how it was preached Jesus began his work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary, and this basically meant that people were originally considered out of luck so to speak allegorically like the parable of the Wise and Foolish virgins at the wedding feast.



I was inspired to post the thread based on this extremely educational video from Answering Adventism on the exact subject.
Login to view embedded media

I am not a Cessationist I do not believe there is an iron clad case to be made that the gift of prophecy and other supernatural signs and wonders etc. have passed away. In fact, I can point to good reasons and Bible verses why that is or should not be the case. However, this is also a far cry from supporting the claims of the many modern groups like many "prophets" of the modern charismatic movement and related movements, as well as people like Ellen White, Joseph Smith and so on. There still are many tests, as far as judging prophets and their prophecy before one should accept such things!


Besides this, I will also note based on the New Testament, when the scripture talks about the Church built "on the foundation of prophets and apostles" (Ephesians 2:20), on the prophet side of things it is more referring to the Old Testament prophets than folks like Agabus, saint John Divine, the itinerant ministers of the Didache etc. This is because the Old Testament prophets wrote "the Bible" that the Church used for the first 4 centuries! (The time it took to agree on the Common Received New Testament canon wee now have and enjoy today). Until then the Church was doing the saint Paul / Justin Martyr thing of preaching Christ from the Old Testament Types and Shadows and using books like the Septuagint and original (OT only) Peshitta/ Peshitto as their reference (besides the older one-off ancient scrolls and papyrus lying around.

As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott continues to beef up apprehension efforts and the Texas legislature prepares to allocate nearly $5 billion to border security efforts, Hobbs has vowed to defund Arizona’s Border Strike Force, which would negatively impact local law enforcement the most, Jobe Dickinson, president of the Border Security Alliance, told The Center Square.

“Currently in Arizona, Governor Hobbs is recommending cutting funding to the border strike force that helps local law-enforcement supplement Border Patrol’s responsibilities. This makes an easy decision for the cartels to start shifting their smuggling routes, more and more into Arizona,” he said.

What will our country look like in another two years?

So...I dont really know how to start this. Ive seen other people say stuff like this before, but I figured its my turn.

Lets start at the beginning. I am new to Christ. I went through hell last July and ended up turning to Christ for comfort. So im not even a year in the faith yet. However there is one thing that is really holding me back from Growing in Christ. I dont long for heaven. I really dont. However I dont long for this world either. I hear about these Christians who are talking about how they can't wait to be at the feet of Christ in praise and worship forever and ever. And I just can't get excited about that!

Now please, dont get me wrong, I long for Christ. And I most certainly do not mind bowing down and worshipping him. This isnt a problem of pride or anything like that. I have no issue submitting to Jesus as Lord. But forever? Thats it? Thats all we do? No, I just can't look forward to that...and I feel like a bad Christian. Like I shouldnt be thinking this stuff.

I love Earth, I dont want to be a spirit, I long for a worldwide community where we still create, and invent and things like that, but with out sin. I love life, and yet "Life" and "Eternal Life" seem to be different. Life is what we have now with variety and differences. Eternal life is...eternal praise...? But why? Thats not life. And as hard as I try to look forward to it, I find myself clinging to this earth, not for the sin, not for the suffering, but for the freedom. The freedom for imagination and creativity (Im sounding like a third grade teacher now), but its true. Why would I desire anything else? Thats what I WAS MADE FOR. To have "dominion over the earth" to be able to create and explore. To desire anything else would be to go against what God created me to be.

Anyhow, im now ranting. Any help is greatly appreciated. Cause I love Jesus, I really do. But...this just flattens me everytime I think of it.

I’m a third year college student and about six months ago I met this wonderful Christian girl who loves the Lord and loves people. She’s gone through some of the toughest health problems and some of the toughest family problems I’ve ever seen someone go through and she’s come out on top through all this. I’d like to take the next step in our relationship to care for her and ask her to be my girlfriend but there’s just one thing holding me back.

She believes that the Bible is silent when it comes to homosexuality. Now, I believe that being gay is not a sin, but engaging in sexual conduct is. However, I’m respectful and understanding of those who are part of the gay community. Growing up, she’s got some extended family members who are gay and are Christians that are married and are raising a kid. She sees no wrong in what they’re doing, which has shaped her views on this, to the point where the many ideas about the mistranslations of the “Clobber” passages are her central point of contention. I’ve tried to show her that even without considering verses, since the dawn of human beings, God specifically created each gender for the other, to be complimentary and to enjoy each other’s company/affection.

Although we differ on this matter, and what it could possibly mean down the road with potential marriage and children and how we raise them, she still wants to enter into a relationship with me, and I do as well, but this is making me think and pray about things a bit harder. She is quite literally the greatest woman I have ever met in my life. What would you do if you were in my case? Would you continue into dating or end things? Or am I completely wrong in my understanding?

What is your favorite end times passage that gives you hope ?

I will start.

Mine is 1Corinthians15:51-55

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Login to view embedded media
Elise Stephanic's statements at the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

She describes evidence. Good listen - well worth the 5 or so min.

Describes that there were so many former intelligence officers working at Twitter, they developed their own onboarding.

Definitions?

I have heard the term "Apostolic Power" used a number of time over the last 35 years or so.

I thought this would be a good discussion to have.

1. What is it?
2. What does it look like in real life?
3. Was it only for the 12?
4. Did the 84 other Apostles in the New Testament operate in it?
5. Is there a modern day Apostle flowing in this power?

Let's do our best to be kind to one another - tender hearted

Universal Restoration includes major premises of Calvinism and Arminianism, while avoiding their flaws.

This breakdown is based on a sermon by Elhanan Winchester as found in A Larger Hope? by Robin Parry and Ilaria Ramelli (pg. 119)

1. God loves all
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

2. The objects of God's love will come to salvation
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

3. God desires all to be saved
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

4. All God's purposes will be accomplished
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

5. Christ dies for all
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

6. All for whom Christ died will be saved (his blood was not shed in vain)
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

Calvinists hold that God only loves some, that only some will be saved. In other words, God is unwilling to save all. Arminians hold that God loves all, but only some will be saved because human freedom will thwart God's will. In other words, God is unable to save all. Classical Universal Restoration (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, et al) asserts that God loves all, is willing to save all, and is able to bring all to salvation willingly. In other words, God is willing, God is able, and God will save all. The UR position is the more fitting account of God's love, will, and power.

I was "saved" as a child. I grew up thinking I was saved. I believed in God and Jesus and believed that Jesus dies for my sins. I wanted more than anything to be saved. I have sinned and quit going to church for many years but still prayed and always asked myself "What would Jesus do?" Now, I go to church all the time, read the bible daily, witness and really try to have a closer relationship with God. I believe that I am saved by grace, through my faith. However, I still really do not feel the Holy Spirit in me. I want to more than anything and sometimes think I do but may only be imagining it.

In my husband's case, he was also saved as a child but quit going to church. He was a good man. He was the first to forgive, he had a huge heart, and he told people he believed in God. However, he did not pray regularly and never read the bible. I know he believed though. He passed away two years ago. I often cry because I cannot bear the thought that his being saved as a child may not have been enough if there were no faithworks after that.

When the bible says in Matthew that many will think they can enter but God will say he never knew them because they did not have a relationship with God, what does that mean? Is the relationship based only on faith? Is it true faith if there are no works after the fact? Is faith real if we cannot feel the Holy Spirit?

Sometimes, I feel so confused and a mess. I pray for clarity, but... I am just looking for insight.

Friday’s report from the government made clear that the nation’s job market remains fundamentally healthy, with many employers still eager to hire.

--

see also:

Continuing the saga from: Prayer Request: My brother is in the hospital Summary: My brother had an intussusception removed that contained a cancerous tumor. One of the lymph nodes they also removed in the surgery also came up with cancer. His next medical treatment is a colonoscopy on April 24. Please continue to pray for him, as he may have to go through chemotherapy (ouch). He is 26 years old.

Meanwhile, also pray for guidance and wisdom for me as I navigate through what promises to be a complex situation. My dad wants to evict me from the house that I'm currently staying at, so I called my boyfriend (who knows how to move houses) and got a quote for the move. Then, right after my boyfriend left, my mom called and begged me to stay at the house that I'm currently at because she needs me to take care of my brother and drive him to chemotherapy. I'm not going to leave town so maybe I can move out and still take care of him?!

Part of me wants to tell my mom no, but my brother hasn't done anything wrong and my mom may need dental surgery as well which could keep her 400 miles away. Still, my mom would do a much better job of taking care of my brother than I would. Prayers appreciated, still.

Artist John Emmett

1 John 5:16 (NIV)

There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

Christians are often confused when they are commanded to pray for their enemies (Matthew 5:4). We need to understand that Christ isn't commanding us to pray for the well-being and prosperity of our enemies so that they continue to do evil as much as to pray for their salvation and deliverance from sin. Some sin in many ways and can be delivered from their sin through prayer. However, some blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-30, Acts 5:3-4), and we should not pray for them as we would be asking God to bless evil. Satan, Judas Iscariot, King Saul, the Pharisees, and others would be examples of blasphemers and apostates who we should not pray for, as we would be asking God to bless evil, which He does not. There are times when, like King David, we can and should pray that God will destroy our enemies (1 Chronicles 14:10-11). Some have not blasphemed against the Lord like Simon Peter, who we should pray for (Luke 22:31-32). Some are apostates like Judas who hang themselves instead of repenting, whom we should not pray for (Matthew 27:5). Such people should be handed over to Satan to be taught not to be blaspheme, not prayed upon (1 Timothy 1:20).

In orthodoxy would you who are Orthodox Christians agree that this is an accurate summary of the Epiclesis in the divine liturgies.

The epiclesis is a central part of the liturgy in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches. In Orthodox liturgies, the epiclesis is often recited by the priest or bishop in a loud voice, and it invokes the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Here are a few examples of the epiclesis in Orthodox liturgies:

1. From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Eastern Orthodox): "Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented, and make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ. Amen. And that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Your Christ. Amen. Changing them by Your Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen."
2. From the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great (Eastern Orthodox): "And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ. Amen. And that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Your Christ. Amen. Changing them by Your Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen."
3. From the Liturgy of St. James (Oriental Orthodox): "Send down, O Lord, Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts, that being overshadowed by His grace and sanctified by His power, we may be made worthy to partake of this divine and holy mystery of the Body and Blood of Your Christ."

In all of these examples, the epiclesis is a prayer for the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.

During a radio interview with Fox News host (and longtime confidant) Sean Hannity on Monday, the twice-impeached ex-president finally revealed how he personally would have prevented the war. According to Trump, all he needed to do was let Russia “take over” parts of Ukraine.

Click to expand...

As part of the on-air interview, the former president congratulated himself for the fact that Russia didn’t invade its neighbors during his White House term. Trump quickly added, “That’s without even negotiating a deal. I could have negotiated. At worst, I could’ve made a deal to take over something, there are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas, frankly, but you could’ve worked a deal.”

Click to expand...

In other words, the brilliant plan of Trump for peace in our times would be appeasement. Who thought that foreign politics could be so easy?

Who eats all the animals sacrificed to the Lord? The lord? Leviticus

I have my thoughts on this. Many churches are struggling with this today. Although neither determines your salvation, it’s a hot topic today. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this topic, please be kind. Thanks!