Never did, your clutching at straws,
Nope.
Its not Christ first its bible first, Idols in mens hearts.
The Bible is not a graven image. The scriptures are they which testify of Him; but you are unwilling to come to Him that you might have life (John 5:39-40).
But you have to abide in Him first.
Right. And that means that His words will abide in you (John 15:7).
Its one thing to be living that kind of Life its another to be boasting about it,
Sometimes God's people are compelled to boast, because unbelieving folk ask for proof of what they are saying, about entire sanctification being possible. Sometimes the only way those unbelieving folk are going to be able to see the truth is if we tell them that God has done that work in our own lives so that, over time, as they test that in us, they can see that it is indeed the reality and that the doctrine is true.
I tend not to boast about the work that the Lord has done in my heart unless someone is denying that it is possible for the Lord to do that work in anyone's heart. Then I give them my testimony, so that they can know that it is indeed possible.
If your obedient shouldn't you shut up about it
For the most part; but there is a time and a place for everything.
This is not true.
Your commentary is lying.
The person that wrote it is a deceiver.
This coming from the person who denies indwelling sin (and 1 John 1:8 declares that he deceives himself and the truth is not in him).
If
@Ferris Bueller is lying and is a deceiver, give scripture to show forth that what he is saying is a lie. Put up or shut up.
The fact is, God never withdraws
John 3:16. NOT EVER !
The fact is, John 3:16 bases the "should not perish" on believing in Christ.
So, if someone ceases to believe in Christ, the "should not perish" no longer applies.
It comes back to what we say about Luke 8:13. Someone who believes for a while, and then falls away in a time of temptation, does not continue to have salvation.
To say otherwise is heresy.
So here's the thing. The prophecies concerning Israel and the Mosaic Covenant aren't, "to a certain extent". They will keep every law, every statute.
So, you think that that is possible?
If it is possible for Israel, why is it not possible for the Gentile?
Do you not realize that the New Covenant is the New Testament; and that therefore the law is written on the hearts and minds of believing Gentiles as well as Jews (see Hebrews 8:8-10)?
Fulfilled in us, not by us, or through us.
in us is also by us and/or through us. For if you clean the inside of the cup of the platter, the outside will be clean also.
Perhaps the best thing would be the engage in some active listening, also called reflective listening. This involve repeating back to a person what they've said without changing it, without answering it, without anything besides reflecting back what you believe the person to be saying.
Then, if you are right in what you understand, the person can say so. Otherwise, they can offer a correction, after which you again repeat back in your own words what they are expressing.
And once you get to the place where they tell you, yes, that's right, then true discussion can begin.
What I'm picking up from your posts is that you like to reword my statements into something I'm not saying trying to just score points off of me.
I have only phrased my estimations of your doctrine in the form of a question.
For instance . . .
So, in your estimation, rightly dividing the word of truth means discounting the Old Testament?
Case in point.
I wrote:
marks said: ↑
In the NT, using metanoia, it's a word speaking of not changing one's mind, but exchanging it. Rather then the "stop doing this and start doing that" of the OT, it's more, trade in your old mind for a new mind, and now we have new minds.
To which you replied:
So, just to be accurate, you are teaching that repentance (away from sin) is not necessary for salvation.
Again, in the form of a question (though without a question mark).
All these are true, naturally, but again, we have to rightly divide.
A simple example . . . are you building an ark, expecting to see groups of animals showing up at your door? I'm guessing not, because you recognize that this instruction was given to Noah, and not you, and wasn't meant for you.
Does this mean we discount the record of Noah, and the flood, and all that happened? Of course not.
Does it mean we can't learn from this part of the Bible? Of course not.
Does it mean we should be building an ark? Of course not! Because in this we rightly divide.
Much love!
So, how is my defining repentance using Ezekiel 33:11-20 not rightly dividing the word? Iow, how is it like your illustration using Noah?