College baseball now, the NSIC regular season is quickly coming to an end for the BSU Beavers. Just three weeks remain until playoffs begin, and BSU hoping to get on a roll these final few weeks. One of the better teams in the conference, Minot State in town for a twin bill today. Game one, it was tight until the sixth. That's when Minot State breaks it open. Jordan Scholes with the drive to right, it's an RBI double, Kyle Williamson scores. And Minot State wasn't done. Wyatt Schlosser puts a charge into that one. That's a two run, Jack. MSU let it five to one. They win game one, five to two. In game two though, BSU bounces back to win five, four as former Bemidji Lumberjack. Connor McNallan comes in in the ninth to lock it down, picks up his second save of the season. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


It was something, you know, once we had it, we had to try and, you know, keep it. This is, this is, we're going to try and make the 4x2 our event. We all swam well, I think it was a British record as well. It's just a phenomenal moment, it was just another one as well, just with three other friends just standing on the podium, just loving it, so yeah, that was a great moment. My goal was, you know, just, can I, how many medals can I get internationally? So I think 2018 was a great opportunity for me to do that, you know, Commonwealth Games first. It was a great opportunity to try and test myself against some of the world's best athletes and see what I could do. What I wanted to do that, that entire year, just see how often can I, can I get on the podium. Europeans in 2018 in Glasgow were really special, coming off the back of quite, quite a good Commonwealth Games representing Scotland. You know, I now get a unique opportunity to race in my hometown, you know, where I was born, against European athletes and of international quality in my hometown. For me, my leg was a strange one. You know, I think first and foremost, you know, I was racing the American alongside me, Nathan Adrian, someone that I've looked up to.  I wasn't too bothered what time I went. I don't think it was about that. It was more about we didn't fall short this time, you know, we went out and did it. We beaten the Americans. It just doesn't happen often in real life. So, you know, I think it was really special. I think to do it in the way that we did it or, you know, I think that made it even more special as well.


Okay, so now we're ready to move on to a new concept with really established firmly how we're going to be playing roots and fifths as a jazz bassist. Now we want to start adding some more interesting notes. The next really interesting note that we're going to find a lot in jazz is what we call the dominant seventh. Now the way you can think of the dominant seventh is it's a whole step below the root, or if you were to play a major scale it's the flatted seventh of the major scale. So not the seventh note of the major scale if we took the seventh note of the major scale and made it a half step lower. That's our dominant seven. Now whenever you look at jazz music and you look at the charts you will oftentimes see the chord name be flat and then beside it there will be a seven. What's that seven mean? It means that the dominant seventh is part of the chord. Now from a bass player's perspective it's a really interesting note. It'll begin to make some of these sort of vanilla bass lines that we've been playing start to feel a little bit more like jazz. In fact they'll feel a lot more like jazz. So let's think about our neck geography and where we're playing in terms of a key and you'll see how this dominant seventh is really easy to find. Now so far we've established that we know where our root is because that's where our index finger is going to be. We know where the fifth note of the scale is going to be. That's our pinky one string up and two frets up. So from root we go to the fifth. Now we also talked about the octave being there one string up from the fifth. Now the dominant seventh is a whole step below the octave. So it's on the same fret as the root just two strings higher. So root, fifth, octave, root and here's the dominant seventh. Now when we're playing our bass lines instead of playing root, fifth, octave, any time that seven is beside the chord change that you're looking at you can play root, fifth, octave and the seventh and you can play it in a couple of different orders. You might want to go root, root, fifth, octave, seventh, root, fifth, octave, seventh or you can go the opposite way and the beautiful thing about it is your hand is framed right up in the same exact place with established root our index finger is on root and we go from there. Even when we change chords we know where we're going. Chord is B flat. Now if the chord is E flat and if the chord is F we shift our hand up and then we can go back to B flat. All the while you know exactly what step of the scale you're playing on. Root, fifth, octave or dominant seventh. Remember you want the root to land on the first pulse of every measure. That's really important and as you begin getting comfortable with it you can play around with the order that you play these notes and you can start making some really cool walking bass lines. Let me put on the drums and I'll show you all framed up here what this is going to look like and what it's going to sound like. Go ahead and give that a try. Put on a practice drum beat and start fooling around with getting that dominant seventh into your walking bass lines. Remember root, fifth, octave and seventh are the notes that really matter here in these walking bass lines. See what you come up with.


Thank you very much. For the candle stand? Yes, thank you. It's very specially made. Thank you. This is your most favourite subject of the climate. What type of initiative have you taken in my country? How do you run a detailed account? This is a piece of paper made here in Vatican. It's specially made in Balai Agaia. It's called La Bonanza. The grain, the grape, and the dessert, the dessert will become a garden. It's a very beautiful garden. Peace. I have seen for you today. Oh. That's it. I'm very happy. I'm very happy. I'm very happy to receive you. Thank you. It's a great honour. Thank you very much for your visit. I'm very happy. It's honourable. Very happy. And I would like to see you in India. I've got the honour to receive you there. And pay for me. You are also always giving me strength.


Conditional insecure retard seeking the one saved strikes again. So just to give you a bit of background as those of you who have already watched the videos preceding this will know. I released the documentary Repent of your sins where we said nowhere in the Bibles it said to repent of your sins to be saved. I had various commentary from seeking the one saved. I then did a follow up video where I went through the Isaiah 5920 that he was throwing at me. And then we had a further exchange somewhere down here and then he said he would do a follow up video which he did eventually after a couple of weeks and so here it is. I'm not going to like go through the whole thing or play the whole thing in this video or even play it at all. I'm going to show you from the transcript what he said but it's there if you want to go watch it. You can see for yourself what he said and what his arguments were against my arguments and what he was saying about my terrible arguments and so on and so forth. So that's what I'm going to be talking about in this video and I'm not doing this video as like a reply to him or to try and get a response from him. I'm doing it purely for people that have been listening to me and subscribed to my channel or people that have just heard all of the verbal tennis going back and forth between me and this guy and they just want an answer for some of this stuff. I apologise if you can hear traffic but the window is open. So I'm not going to go through all of the comments that I've exchanged for him because really you can just look at the previous video. What I'm going to deal with here is the way that he's framed how this argument went and to those of you that have subscribed to me and you've watched a bit of my content. I want to show you some of the manipulation tactics that these people use and how they're trying to use psychological games to try and plant things into the minds of their listeners. So what I'm going to do is I'm just going to work my way across his timeline up here, look at some of the stuff that he said in the transcript about this, that and the other. Hopefully provide a satisfactory answer to some of the things that were said against me as the Bible says to be proven with hard questions to answer for yourself and so on. So that's what we're going to be looking at in this video. So he introduces the video here saying that I did this documentary saying that nowhere in the Bible does it say to repent of your sins to be saved so you can see the documentary preview there in the left corner. OK, he then challenged me with Isaiah 5920 as some of you will know from watching my response video about that.  He doesn't say repent. It says turn. It doesn't say sins. It says transgression. And I talked about that all through the video that I did. That was the whole point of that to actually go through that verse and show you how he just sort of, you know, changes the words a little bit. OK. And so after we'd exchanged with each other, I made it quite clear that I wouldn't take Isaiah 5920 as a salvation verse. OK. You know, it's not a verse I would use to preach the gospel or, you know, tell us how to be saved. OK. And so he's drawing attention to that fact before he then goes to talk about what his criticism of my responses were. And then so what what happens is when we exchanged those comments in the second video, this was after I'd already done the previous recording, he brings up Romans 1126 as a cross reference to Isaiah 5920. And so I answer him from that point of view. And then he says that I'm basically changing my interpretation and changing my exegesis of Isaiah 5920. So he's accusing me of essentially switching position in response to his comment and then like switching back and forth between, is it salvation, is it not salvation, is it a repent of his sins, is it not a repent of his sins. So he's saying I'm going in circles to try and, you know, sort of wriggle out of this inescapable fact that it is a salvation verse according to him. And so seven and a half minutes in. This is where he's he's saying that I'm changing my interpretation in response to his query on 11, Romans 1126 there. And you can see the cross reference with Isaiah and he'll show you some of the stuff that I said about that. Now just winding to three minutes 25. This is where he's saying I quote unquote accept that Isaiah 5920 is about repenting of sin. And I says that like I somehow at first didn't think it was about repenting from sins. But really contextually, it is about quote unquote turning from transgression. What I said to him was that it doesn't use the phrase repent of sins. OK, that one of the key points of the documentary, the documentary did not deny that repenting of sin or turning from sin is a biblical concept. OK, it is a biblical concept. The Bible does tell us repent of various sins or turned from sins. It's not unbiblical. There was a whole section in the documentary. If you just look at the chapters, you can see when repentance is turning from sin. We did a whole section of it in the documentary. So we're not saying that, you know, I'm not saying that turning from sin is unbiblical. What the documentary did claim is that the verbatim phrase repent of your sins is not found in the Bible. OK, now I had to do a follow-up in the video following it up. I had to admit that I didn't realise the NIV uses the phrase in Isaiah 59 that way. We'll get to that a little bit later in this one just to recap on that. But I never said it's not about turning from sin or repenting of sin. I said essentially it doesn't use the phrase repent of sins because that's the phrase that's being parrated and parrated by Christians everywhere, OK? But yes, I did assert absolutely that it's not in the context of salvation. And in fact, if you just go to the responsive video that I did, there is a whole section about Isaiah. And I went through Isaiah 58, I went through Isaiah 59, and I went through Isaiah 60. I gave context, which is look to Isaiah to see what Isaiah was talking about, OK? It's called context, right? So, yes, I asserted that Isaiah 59-20 is not about eternal salvation, OK? That's what I said. There's no running away from that. There's no hiding that. That's the claim that I made, all right? Now, have a look at his comment here where in this response video he then asks me about Romans 11-26 and is using this to explain Isaiah 59-20 as a salvation passage. He asks me, do you consider Romans 11-26 to be a cross-reference to this passage? I did not hear you speak on it. Well, yeah, because you didn't ask me about it first. You're asking me about it now. And it is probably going to be a good portion of my proof text when I respond. Now, he then goes on to say, the way I under... Now, watch the language that he uses here. Watch what he is saying. The way I understand it, OK, is that Paul is using Isaiah to explain that the Jews are going to be eternally saved. Now, I don't know if either YouTube... I mean, it doesn't say that he's edited this comment, OK? I don't know, but I see how I can't expand the... Usually there's an option to show more, and it's dot dot dot, but I can't seem to show more. So I'm going to show you the quote from his video, but it's just it's quite small. I don't know how well you're going to be able to see it. So let's see if I can make this a bit bigger for you. I'm not going to put it down there, but obviously his bit there is quite a bit longer than it looks like on mine. OK. Now, I don't think it's going to show very well. He probably might not be reading, but after... You see, on my perspective, when it goes to the ellipsis and I can't seem to expand it, he goes on to say, after he's just said the way I understand it, he then goes on to say, so I do believe that Paul clarifies that this verse is talking about Jesus and so on. So two key points there, I'm sorry, you can't see it very well, but he's saying the way I understand it, and then he's saying, so I do believe that. OK, very important that he says that because then watch what he says. So about, if you look at 7 minutes 40, he says, I come into the comments section, the same video, and inform him that the apostle has already confirmed the context. Now, you see that is playing a little bit of word games here because if you start a sentence with the way I understand it, or I believe that Paul dot dot dot, you're really giving your opinion, OK? That's not giving information, that's giving your opinion on what you think. But you see, here he's making it sound to his audience like he was saying it more authoritatively than he said it to me because it sounds like he was trying to say it a bit more humbly when he said it to me, but then when he's talking to his audience about it, he's now trying to sound more authoritative about it. OK? Well, it's not like you informed me, thusly. You gave your opinion that you understand it that way, OK? It's acting like he's kind of teaching me something that I was wrong about there when he was really just giving his opinion. So then when you jump to about 8 minutes, this is him commenting on my response. I've somehow recognised that I was wrong about Isaiah 59-20 not being in the context of salvation. So that's when I've then changed it, OK? Or I'm otherwise calling Paul a liar if I say that it's not in the context of salvation because that's how Paul used it in Romans chapter 11, OK? So in the full comment, I mean, I probably just really, I did kind of point out the obvious, I suppose, but I'm saying that it's worded very differently.  Sometimes they pick bits of different verses and piece it together, OK? So he dismissed the first point I made which I'm fine with. And then he says that he then points out, this is me talking, obviously, that Paul is quoting, and I've put this word probably, OK? Because I don't know with absolute certainty that Paul was quoting Isaiah 59-20 because sometimes the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament will paraphrase, but they'll still be very similar. It just might be the odd word that's worded slightly differently in the New Testament, OK? As I'm saying probably, I'm not denying it. I don't want to say with absolute certainty because there are parts of the New Testament where they say it is written or it is spoken and then you can't really find an Old Testament passage that says that. But the Bible does reference other writings that we don't have like the book of Jason and various other things. So he comments on this somewhere, I'll just show you this.  Yeah, the thing is I don't know, OK, because Paul's not here for me to ask him. I can't say, hey Paul, is it Isaiah 59-20 or are you referring to something else?  He's not here for me to ask him. So no, actually, I don't know because the difference between, and we'll see this later, but the difference between Romans 11 and Isaiah 59, the read very differently actually. Paul, it doesn't just slightly, it's very, very paraphrased. Very, very different the way that Paul says it, if he is quoting it. So, yeah, I don't know his authority because he's not here for me to ask him. The only thing I can know about is what is Paul talking about in Romans 11 around that quote. OK. So I argued purely from a hypothetical. I'm just saying, let's just say for the sake of argument, you know, so we don't have to argue about whether he is quoting Isaiah 59-20 because, you know, I can only stand on probably, I don't know. So I can only really argue hypothetically. Let's just say for the sake of argument that Paul is quoting Isaiah 59-20. Now, it's very important that I said that because everything that I then say about this is purely based on this hypothetical point. He's thrown Romans 11 at me, so I've got to answer it now with Romans 11 in mind. And some say, OK, if he is quoting this passage as you say he is, then this is my answer in response to that point. And so then at 12 minutes and 40 seconds, he dismisses the fact that I'm arguing purely hypothetically from his point of view. OK. You know, if what he says about Paul quoting Isaiah 59 is true, then this is my answer. And then he says that I'm going into a new interpretation that's not phrased in any hypothetical way and that Paul is, you know, or anything like that. And so now he's trying to make it sound like I'm being more authoritative about how Paul uses it than I actually am. So here's just so you can see the difference, OK. Here's Romans 11-26 on the left, and here's Isaiah 59-20 on the right. Now, compared to other New Testament verses that quote the Old Testament, this is not really a very alike quote, OK. Because, first of all, Isaiah says Redeemer, Paul has said deliverer, and they do really have different meanings. But watch this as well. Isaiah says the Redeemer shall come to Zion. So that assumes, from the outside, coming to Zion, coming towards Zion. Whereas in Paul's quote here, it says come out of Zion. As if he's already in Zion, Zion, to begin with. They read a little bit differently. Now, you might think I'm playing word games there, but, you know, I'm not making strong assertions about whether he is. Seeking the one saved kind of criticise me for not knowing for sure whether Paul is quoting Isaiah. Well, the thing is I'm saying probably because, yeah, out of all the Old Testament passages I could find when I looked this up, this is probably the closest matching. It's the most similar verse that I can find. So you've got me there. I can't find a verse in the Old Testament that's more similar than this one, OK. But I'm still going to hang on the fact that it's probably, I don't know for sure, because it reads very, very, very differently, OK. And you see, there shall come out of Zion and deliver it, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Whereas it turns onto them that turn from transgression in Jacob. So they read very, very differently, really, OK. And so I kind of pointed that out, and then I gave my breakdown about the language that Paul actually uses in Romans and how that compares with Isaiah 59, OK. So if we read Romans 11, Paul is pointing to the hard-heartedness of the people of Israel. And what is he talking about? Well, if we just look at Romans 11, you know, we see Israel is blinded. That's the subject. They're abiding in unbelief. That seems to be the problem. And he goes on to talk about Jesus made an agreement or God made an agreement that this is the agreement shall take away their sins. But what's he talking about here? Primarily about unbelief. There it is again. We just saw it in that earlier verse, and now we're seeing it in that later verse. And so what's the problem that Paul seems to be highlighting here? The problem that he's pointing out is, he came to the Israelites, the Jews, if you like. They didn't believe him. And all you have to do is read the Gospels, which is before the book of Romans anyway. So when we look at Romans, we've already read the Gospels telling us that Jesus preached to multiple Jews multiple times. You know, believe on me and they didn't believe it. Okay, and that seems to be what Paul is talking about here. And then I went on to say that when we read Isaiah 59-20, it says transgression in the singular. It doesn't say plural sins. It says transgression singular. And again, assuming that Paul, for the sake of argument that Paul is quoting Isaiah 59-20, Paul doesn't quote it as transgression. He doesn't even quote it as sins plural. He quotes it as ungodliness, okay? You know, which unbelief is a form of ungodliness, if you like. And so because I said that, bearing in mind that I'm still arguing from a hypothetical as far as I'm concerned, he's now accusing me of changing what I believe about Isaiah 59-20 that I'm then saying that now it is a salvation verse. When I didn't say that, he's trying to make it out. Because I've then answered from the point of view of the question that he asked me, purely from a hypothetical, that I've changed my interpretation now, and I've elevated Isaiah 59-20 to a salvation verse all of a sudden. That's not what I was trying to do here, folks. What I was trying to show is that even according to his interpretation, and if what he says is true that Paul is quoting Isaiah 59-20, Paul is using it in a very, very different way than how he's using it. Because he thinks when he reads Isaiah 59-20, he thinks throw away the pornography and chuck all the booze away and stop doing the cigarettes and stop this and stop that and blah blah blah and all the other things that he thinks that encompasses. But why isn't Paul talking about those things in Romans 11? Why is Paul not talking about all these sins that the Jews refused to turn from? Paul is talking about their unbelief. So even according to the way that he's using Romans 11 to then shape what he believes about Isaiah 59, it still doesn't work because the Bible does not say what he wants it to say. He wants it to say, repent of your sins that thou shalt be saved. He doesn't say that. It says turn from transgression in the King James Bible anyway. But I'm going to have to show you with this guy how he really manipulates the narrative here to embellish and sensationalise and distort what it is I actually said, the claims that I was trying to make and how he thinks this conversation actually went. I'm going to show you. There's a lot of manipulation going on in this video. You may not see it at first, but once you see it, it's inescapable. The way that he manipulates the people who are watching him on this video. Okay. So the first thing I want to show you about Mr Manipulator here. So in response to all of this stuff that I said, and I'm still arguing from how this could be, I'm just answering it from his point of view to say that even according to his point of view that Romans is referencing Isaiah 59 and bringing it to a gospel issue, that it still doesn't say what he wants it to say. He wants it to say, clean up your life and turn your life around and fix yourself and then you can be saved. When actually Paul's talking about unbelief, that's what he's talking about, deal with it. So answer it from his perspective but then he's trying to make it sound like I flipped Isaiah 59 to now say that it is a salvation verse but it's not saying repent of your sins, alcohol, booze, pornography, whatever. Okay. So he's going to say that I'm flipping around here and flipping around but I want you to show you what he does. Right. Now what his argument is is that just because he says to you you must turn from your sins that that doesn't take away from the fact that salvation is from God and you don't do anything quote unquote for your salvation because it's God who helps you turn from your own sins. You don't do it in your strength. So he's accusing me then of separating those two things as if to say that you repenting of your sins is not in God's strength. Okay. And well, yeah, that's fine.  I think if you say that you must repent of your sins you're saying that you must do something. That's about what you do. I have proclaimed that there's not really any running away from the fact that I have said that. So he's going to argue in this video that those two things are interchangeable. If God changes somebody and they turn from sins that's the same thing as you repenting of your sins to be saved. Okay. So I'm going to show you some of the games that we play here to help him reach that conclusion. He's reading text into the narrative that's not there in the very passage that the documentary itself talked about. You see, he's saying, okay, Acts 3.26, he's relating Acts 3.26 to Romansland because they're quite similar, right? God turns each of you from your wicked ways. And so that's his kind of bridge between these, if you like. But he's saying this is going to show why we can say that we are repenting of our sins, a person repents of their sins that he's still going to be said that ungodliness was turned away. Now, here's the thing. You see, he just puts these one verse quotes on the screen there and points to them. He's not offering any sort of breakthrough of the text. Here's the verses before it. Here's what's being spoken about in this chapter. Here's the points that they're getting to. We don't get any of that from him. We just get these one verse quotes.  So, you know, if you were just to read Acts 3 leading up to it, the problem with this crowd that is being preached to is that Jesus came on to them, okay? And through their ignorance, they killed the Holy One, okay? They are responsible for the death of Jesus. They rejected the Christ at the time when he came. Now, we don't know that everybody in this chapter was all present, okay? You know, that they were all personally responsible. But as a rule of thumb, the general crowd that they're preaching to, the Jews that they're preaching to, the Jews are responsible for handing them over. The people that should have received him didn't receive him. We already know that from the Gospels before we get to the book of Acts because the Gospels come first in the Bible.  And notice when it says repent, it does not say of your sins after that verse like the documentary said, it just says repent. It doesn't say of your sins, okay? It's repent of this, you know, what you did to the Christ here, okay? Or even being part of the people that did this to the Christ through your ignorance, okay? And he'll send Jesus Christ which preached unto you before, okay? Whom the heaven must receive until the time of restitution, okay? So that's what's being spoken about here. And so we end this chapter saying unto you, first God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turning every one of you from his sins. Now, does it read that verse? Does that say save you? Okay? No, it doesn't. Does it say pass you from death on to life? Again, no, it doesn't, okay? He blessed you turning away every one of you from iniquities. And the only iniquities that has really been spoken about here is this, what you did to Jesus, okay? No mention of, you know, all the little pet sins that you've got going on in your life.  We're being very specific here, okay? Now then, just in case you were confused, just in case you're in danger of catching the repent of your sins to be saved disease, we need to do a diagnosis and give you a shot of medicine, okay? The narrator's going to help you immediately in the verses in the next chapter, okay? It says right here, they preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead, laid hands, put them in the hall the next day, it was event-tied. How be it many of them which heard the word believed. So did it say that they put doubt, they threw their pornography on the fire in the presence of all the apostles, and they bought the alcohol and just poured it, going in front of the apostles, and everybody brought all of their evil, you know, paraphernalia from witchcraft, and all these kind of things, and you know, the apostles set it on, but no, it just says they believed. And what did they believe? The preaching of Jesus, the resurrection from the dead.  Well guess what, he's resurrected, and now you believe him, okay? Good stuff. That's what's being spoken about here. Now, in a manner of speaking, did Jesus turn people from their other sins? Well, he certainly preached against sin, you know, he said sin no more in John 5 and John 8, he did the Sermon on the Mount where he preached against sins, but whenever he mentioned eternal life, it was belief on him, that's what they were told to do. Whosoever believeth on me, okay? And I already answered that in the previous video, which he hasn't really addressed in this follow-up video, so I'm not really going to talk about it any further. But this is going to lead on to the next point. You see this crowd right here in Acts 3, notice in verse 25, it says, you are the children of the prophets. Now if we take the entirety of Scripture, we know that if a Jew doesn't believe the Christ, they're not saved, they're not the children of God. If we have a more holistic understanding of the whole Bible. So if we take this to mean in the flesh, he's obviously preaching to a Jewish crowd who should have been God's people and should have believed this Holy One of Israel, but they rejected him and put him on the cross, okay? That was the problem being dealt with here. And so that, you know, once again, it doesn't matter how many times he wants to spin this in it, well look at this verse over here about something about sin, and look at that verse over there that might be quoting that, that it always comes back to faith for salvation, no matter how many different ways he's trying to spin it, okay? And that was my point in answering Romans 11. It wasn't that I changed what I believe on to Isaiah 50 now, which I will get on about, you know, shortly, but just hang up. And so this leads me on to the next point that I want to see. It shows some carefully selected and carefully edited clips of the follow-up video that I did in response to, or the rubbish that he was talking, and I pointed some verses. Now, look, if you're going to make videos, get some decent IT skills, okay? I even tell you in my video descriptions how you can download my videos so you can actually show a big preview so that your silly little listeners down here can actually see the verses that I'm providing on the screen, but you've made it so small, that you've got somewhere else, you've got the adverts from your mobile view or something, because I don't know if you record them from mobile or whatever you're doing. Get yourself some IT skills, download the entire video, and put it on a big screen so that people can actually see the verses that I was quoting in that.  So here we are.  You can see what I'm pointing to. I'm pointing to. He comes to me. That's you going to Jesus, okay? And notice it even uses the right terminology for eternal life. You know, raise him up at the last day. He that believath on me, et cetera. Here's another one, John 3, okay? Everlasting life. See how all the verses that I provide have got the terminology, the salvation words, the eternal life terminology here, the phrases, okay? Believe in him. Everlasting life. Who is coming to who? It's you coming to the light, okay? Now, watch what he does. Not only does he put the video of me about one inch big so you can't read the verses actually provided for you. Look at what this manipulative devil is doing, right? He provides a quote from John 1, okay, on the right, and he's not offering any commentary on the verses that I've provided. He's not making sure that you can read what I've provided, okay? He's just sort of glazing over the fact that I spoke about this.  And then he's pointing to these bits in John 1 about Jesus coming to, you know, you essentially. And then pointing to Isaac. And this is a key tactic about false prophets and wicked people, okay? My verse, the verse that I provide, says eternal life, okay? I'm pointing to the subject matter. It's big on the screen, you can see it. I'm also explaining it when I'm showing it on the screen. I'm not just showing it on the screen, folks. I explain it, okay? I'm talking you through it in this video. He doesn't talk about this. He's not actually offering any commentary on this. He's not talking about how it proves I'm wrong. He's just putting it on the screen, pointing at it. And what he's trying to do is, he's trying to divert the attention of his viewers away from what I was talking about. Look at this verse over here. Don't mind that verse over there that's talking about eternal life. Quite clearly. Don't mind that. Don't worry too much about it. Look at this over here. Look what I've got. Oh, Jesus comes to you in this verse here. There it is, folks. Look at that. They constantly do this. They want you to look at some other verse than the one being discussed. They always do this and I'm sick of it, okay? He's trying to divert his viewers attention away, right? That's exactly what he's doing. Now, let's see if I can get this verse in the King James 9-12. Here we go. I've not... Well, I've highlighted 11 and 12, but there's a true light, like every man that comes into the world, okay? He came onto his own. So, Jesus... This one is where Jesus comes to you. Okay? So, he's pointing to that as if that proves me wrong because I said in my previous video that eternal life, the transaction that takes place is you coming to Jesus, not Jesus coming to you. Hence proving why Isaiah 59-20 is not a salvation verse because it says the Redeemer comes to them, okay? So, according to John 1, does Jesus come to men in that passage? Yes. Does that in any way mean that they got saved or that they got eternal life because he came to them? Okay. Look, he came onto his own. Well, did they get saved? Did they get eternal life?  No, it doesn't. Does his own received him not? Did he come to them? Yes. Did they get eternal life? Well, no. He did not receive them. You just look at the next verse. As many as received him, those who received Christ, it's to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name. Okay? So, again, he's pointing to this verse over here.  Well, okay. How come then he came to them and they didn't receive him and therefore didn't receive eternal life?  It proves everything that I was already saying to him. It proves him wrong. Just because Jesus comes to them does not mean that they got saved. The eternal life transaction is you coming to Jesus. Now, I'm sure if he looks at that, he's going to start digging through his Bible and find some other verse, but I'm not engaging in what about doing another video after this because I'm not giving in to any more of his manipulative tactics going on here. Okay? This is what he's trying to do. He wants you to not look at the verses that I provided and not draw too much attention to them. He wants to draw your attention to a verse that doesn't even prove what he's even arguing really, but that's just what they do. That's how they deceive people because tweedledum and tweedledee down here that are commenting and rejoicing in his video. You see, they're not going to do all this homework. They're not going to go through all of the stuff that I've just pointed out to you. He's not going to explain that or give any commentary, like I did on these verses. That's how he deceives them. He's counting on them not doing any homework and not actually using their brain to actually think about the implications of what he's saying here. Now, let me show you another way where he's going to manipulate narrative. Again, this is how he has to deceive his followers.  Look what he says here. 14 minutes, 57 seconds. This is where I mentioned earlier. He's arguing that when you turn from your sins you're doing it in God's strength so it's still God turning you from your sins. It's not something you're doing in your strength so he's trying to argue that repent of your sins is consistent with faith alone. It's not work salvation. Look what he does two seconds later. To argue his point that you turning from your sins is still God turning you from your sins. He says here, we turn from our own sins by faith. It's no longer our works. We're not doing it because we're working for salvation. It's by faith and it's God that's turning us from our sins. What he's arguing about from and he's citing Jonah 3.5 and Hebrews 11.8. Now the first thing that I want to draw your attention to is that he couldn't be bothered to actually quote those verses on the screen. He just cites them again because he's counting on stupidity at number one and stupidity at number two not actually reading these and not actually spending 10 minutes even talking about here. Let's have a look at these verses then. Apparently we turned from our own sins and it's by faith. It's not work. Jonah 3.5 Let's have a look at Jonah 3. I've got that up here. This is the verse that he's citing, not quoting. He's not providing it but he's citing it. The people of Nineveh believed God believed synonymous with faith. No argument there. They had faith. They believed God or what God said. They proclaimed a fast and put on sackclothers from the greatest of them to the least. I can see that they had faith. I can see that they proclaimed a fast. I can see that. I can see that they put on sackcloth. I can see that. Where does it say in verse 5 that they turned from their sins? It doesn't say it does it folks.  We provided a verse from this chapter to point out our entire argument. My entire argument and the entire argument of people who actually believe in faith alone and not this fraud. Here's our argument. Just keep reading. They believed God. They proclaimed a fast. That sounds like a good thing. They haven't turned from sins yet. Put on sackcloth. They haven't turned from sins yet. Keep reading. This is where we get to it. Verse 8. Cry on to God and let them turn everyone from his evil way. From the violence. There's the turning from evil there. It doesn't say repent of sins. It says turn from evil. Fairly synonymous. There is a turning from sin going on here. Now then. Who can tell if God will turn and repent?  I'll get on to that in a moment. And turn away from his fierce anger that we perish not now. Verse 10. Verse 10 is what we provided in the documentary. As far as I'm aware, correct me if I'm wrong, he has neither mentioned it in this video. He has not addressed it in this video. He has just pretended it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. Because I think he knows what I'm talking about. But I think he's deliberately avoided providing this verse. And God saw there their mighty faith.  Nope, it actually says God saw their works. What did God see? Their faith? No, he said God saw their works.  They turned from their evil way. And as a result of them turning from their evil way, God saved them on to everlasting life. Oh, he doesn't say that either. He doesn't say that he's committed to the evil that he would do to that city. That's all we really know about that chapter. But it says right there, works. So anyone reading that would think well when you turn from your evil way that's your works. That's what Jonah 3.10 says. That's what the documentary says. But he doesn't have to argue about it. He doesn't have to challenge that in any way.  I've proved my point. So, that's completely wrong. That just completely, if you just read that chapter completely undermines everything that you've said because it quite clearly says it's your works when you turn from sin and I've got more to say about that later. Let's look at the second verse that he cited and didn't bother to provide on the screen. Okay, Hebrews 11. Let's see. Here we are. So Hebrews 11 is the Hall of Faith where the writer of Hebrews is commending all these different people in the Bible and their mighty faith and also the mighty works that they did in their faith as well and how obedient they were and how many works they did by their faith. Okay? So he's saying that Hebrews 11.8 says that we turned from our sins by faith. Well, let's just have a look at Hebrews 11 and let's see what it says. So we've got well before it. We've got by faith this guy and by faith that guy. So we're on to Abraham now. By faith Abraham, okay, let's have a look at what it says. When he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive foreign inheritance obeyed. Now that's probably, I'm going to see if I can highlight that in a different colour for you just to draw a bit of attention to it. He obeyed and went out not knowing where he went. Now let's read on a bit. A bit more information about Abraham. So by faith he's sojourned into the land of promise as in a strange country dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and the Jacob and he has with him the same promise. He looked for a city, had foundations, the builder and maker of his god by faith Sarah also and so while this is now on to a different character essentially I mean it's his wife but she received strength to give a child and she was faithful to that promise. Okay, so we can see there Abraham's mighty faith. Now we turn from our sins by their faith. Again can you please show me in these verses here where Abraham turned from his sins oh no it doesn't mention it does it folks now the closest thing that we've got is obeyed. What did Abraham obey? Well he turned from all of his sins because he was so obeyed well we don't know that from this passage do we? We do know that he was called to go out from a place God gave him a promise that he would receive an inheritance. He obeyed, how did he obey? Well he went to that place that God had promised him. Okay, he journeyed in the land of that promise in a strange country. That is what is being obeyed. Is there any mention of Abraham's sin? Now then you want to assume that he turned from sin because he said he obeyed. Well then I want you to explain to me why in two instances in the Bible in Genesis Abraham lied he gave false witness to his wife being his sister and if he's such a mighty man of faith why it says that he did it out of fear not once but twice okay he did it in Genesis 12 and he did it in Genesis 20 after already doing it the first time in Genesis 12 and nearly bringing judgment on the Egyptians he didn't learn his lesson from the first time did he? So if he turned from all of his sins why lie? And if he's such a mighty man of faith that he turned from all of his sins why does he even why does he do this sin out of fear? And this is the problem when people just take this word obey and add all this stuff about turning from all of your sins it's like they're so one sided that they filter out all of the faults of the characters in the Bible they only look at the good stuff now there's a lot of good stuff in this chapter that doesn't mean that they did good stuff all the time folks they sinned they didn't turn from all of their sins and in fact one of the last things that Genesis tells us about Abraham before he dies is that he had many wives and concubines he didn't repent of having concubines that he wasn't married to as far as we know where did he repent from that? it's one of the last things that the Bible tells us so no he didn't turn from all of his sins did he? so stick that up your pipe and smoke it you wouldn't have got any of that from him you didn't get any of that from him he just puts it on the screen there because he knows that this Shaila person is too stupid to go and look it up and Esther is too stupid to go and look it up he's counting on the fact that the only people who would listen to him are complete morons as he is a complete moron ok now then 17.5 minutes in he gives a summary of our exchange ok so I make this documentary claiming that repent of sins never appears in a salvation context and even actually I took it a step further than that because I said it doesn't use the phrase repent of your sins so I even took it a step further than that he then shows me Isaiah 59.20 which he did I've even pinned his comment so that everybody can see that's the first comment you're going to see when you scroll down hopefully it's pinned there for all to see ok sorry wrong tab and I say repent of sins ok now that is what I said I said it doesn't say the word repent and it doesn't say the word sins and if you just look at the video where I went through all this I provided a confession as to why I overlooked Isaiah 59.20 because I was specifically looking at the word repent ok not the word turn because I didn't argue in the documentary that the bible doesn't say turn from sins it says repent of sins in a manner of speaking there is a whole section about that I've already spoken about that and so here was my argument in the King James bible which I use it doesn't say repent it says turn and it doesn't say sins it says transgression it didn't use the phrase repent of sins now is that phrase synonymous with repent of sins is this verse in a manner of speaking telling you to turn from sins or repent of sins yes but it doesn't use the phrase repent of sins to be saved and that was what the documentary was arguing ok so when it says it doesn't say repent of sins I'm not saying it doesn't say it contextually but it doesn't use that phrase and the point of that documentary was to highlight the fact that we've got these Christians constantly parroting this phrase and then when I try and find this phrase in the bible I can't find it ok now you can find similar things but you can't find this phrase that you keep repeating you see a lot of Christians when they're giving the gospel quote unquote what they're actually doing is they're just repeating and parroting christianese that's all they're doing you know another one is like surrender your life to Christ or submit to his lordship or it's all about relationship you're not quoting the bible when you say that you're not even pointing to the bible you're repeating christianese that you've heard somebody else say and repent of your sins because the bible doesn't use this exact phrase and it certainly doesn't say repent of your sins to be saved that's what the point was to the argument again he's trying to manipulate it as if I'm saying it doesn't even say anything like turn from his sins and so then he says here he admits that he was wrong but then I now changed my mind and say well no it is talking about turning from sin but it's not about salvation and again this is just more of his manipulative arguments here that's not what I confess to being wrong about that's not what I said in my video let me show you the confession I made in my video now my confession was very very specific I said that I was not aware that the new international version does actually translate Isaiah 5920 as repent of their sins that's what I confess to I didn't change my mind and say well now it does say repent of your sins I was not aware that the NIV translation says that specifically and just a little bit after I addressed this by showing you from bible hub now there are translations that I wouldn't use but Christians still regard as the accurate ones the ESV the King James the new King James they're saying turn turn turn they're not saying repent they're not using this phrase repent of your sins and it's transgression transgression transgression or wrongdoing not like a plural sins that's what most of these translations are saying and I pointed out that I was not aware that it's the NIV bible version specifically that translates this verse differently that's what I was confessing to I wasn't changing my mind deciding that well now it says repent of your sins that's not what I changed my mind about this is his dishonesty lying about what I actually said and manipulating the narrative of how this exchange actually went so does the NIV say repent of their sins in this verse yes the NIV says that that's what I wasn't aware of but since I use the King James and that's what I was arguing from and I was pointing out that the bible I use says turn not repent and it says transgression the bible as far as I'm concerned doesn't say repent of your sins okay so then if we see that the King James bible that I'm arguing from doesn't say repent of your sins and I've even confessed that I didn't realise that the NIV translates it that way and I was perfectly open about that in that video I was perfectly honest about it okay I didn't hide the fact that I'd made you know made that oversight he has unless I've missed it he has not addressed the difference in translations at all in this video he has not addressed it and this is again this is trying to pretend that an important point was not addressed look what he's done see he's saying that I said you know repent of your sins is not in the bible and then he's providing the NIV translation throughout this video constantly I'm not making any mention of the fact that my bible reads differently or talking about why he thinks the NIV is more appropriate here he's just hey look the NIV says this therefore the bible says repent of your sins and he says it doesn't well no actually the bible doesn't say that your crappy worthless stupid NIV says that and I wouldn't touch the NIV with a 10 foot pole because of several reasons I can only even think of a couple off the top of my head first of all it's published by Zonderman which also publishes the satanic bible don't let that put you off it also calls Satan the morning star which is a title actually reserved for Jesus elsewhere the bible don't let that put you off there's a beautiful story about where Jesus has compassion on somebody and heals somebody like you know and heals them out of sheer compassion and it's a beautiful story and the NIV says he did it out of indignation like be healed in Jesus name indignation the NIV just butchers the bible it's missing a ton of verses because it's translated from the alexandrian crap that I wouldn't you know I don't want anything to do with because I'm TR only on this channel he has just simply declined to address that point so once again he can manipulate his viewers into thinking that the bible says repent of your sins and I say otherwise no actually your NIV translation of that passage says it and most other bibles don't okay and the documentary even had a whole section on these you know what these bibles do to the word repent and how they take out the fact that the bible quite clearly says that God repented now then is the NIV right to translate this verse the way that they did well sometimes repent is synonymous with turn and even sometimes the king james bible says repent for where the Hebrew word would probably be turned there are reasons why it does this and usually it's because it's like a standalone word because if you just said turn full stop that's not really complete whereas repent is more appropriate on its own so the king james bible does do it okay they are synonymous sins well you know really we're dealing with a transgression singular here rather than plural so we're already kind of putting a bit of an optional spin on by pluralising it a bit there I understand that again they are somewhat interchangeable it's this word there right here okay all you have to do is scroll downwards and see that there is no word for there so the NIV is not the most appropriate translation for this verse but you see he won't mention any of that to you he's just going to quote it on the screen like it's the bible and it represents what the bible says and then you know just to try and debunk me no mention of it just don't address it and if you don't address it it will blow away and nobody will ever bring it up that's the tactic that he's using here he doesn't want you to pick up on that point that I pointed out so then he has to invent this lie that I admit that I was wrong and that I've changed course and well again what planet are you living on that didn't happen it then shows me well again you say you show me you say that I understand that dot dot dot and I believe that dot dot dot so really you gave your opinion that's what you think and then I don't admit that I'm wrong but I still strongly then imply that it doesn't say repentance and again that's not what I said but anyway just as a sort of side comic because I didn't address this earlier when we looked at Romans 11 if Paul is using this verse 26 and he is if we say that he is quoting Isaiah 59-20 does that now elevate Isaiah 59 as being an eternal life passage now well no actually it doesn't because it's perfectly possible that Paul was quoting this verse for a very different conversation and in very different context than what Isaiah was using it for you see when I argued what is Isaiah talking about I just went to Isaiah to see what Isaiah was talking about and there's a whole chapter in here he hasn't addressed anything that I actually said about Isaiah from Isaiah again this is that thing where they're trying to get your attention away from those verses and they want to point you over here to this other verse over here saying something else they don't want you looking at the verses that they don't want you to see he wants to distract you he wants to take your attention away now we can demonstrate from the Bible that Paul quotes verses in a different context than how they were intended and we do it as Christians today and it's okay to do it if the way that you're using it is still fundamentally true now let me show you a couple of examples of this so in Romans 3 Paul is talking about how whether somebody is Jew or Gentile we're all guilty of the law we can't be justified by the law and here's one of the arguments he makes they're all gone out of the way that together unprofitable there's none that does good no not one what's he talking about well he's talking about everybody whether they be Jew, whether they be Gentile we're all guilty of the law we can't be justified by the law for salvation and so none of us do good, none of us and even Jesus said there's none good but God that's how Paul uses that verse there in Romans 3 now that quote where is he getting it from well he's getting it from the Psalm 14 I think it's Psalm 53 which is very similar as well almost reads the same through part of it so he's getting it from Psalm 14 here it is they're all gone aside they're all together filthy there's none that does good no not one that's what he's quoting now if you read the Psalm in its original context from Psalm 14 it starts off saying the fool has said in his heart there is no God they are corrupt they have done abominable works so is Psalm 14 talking about the Jews and the Gentiles and the law and how we're all guilty of the law and we all need to be saved by Jesus no it's not Psalm 14 is talking about the fool has said in his heart there is no God and it's this type of person that's being spoken about in the Psalm now why does Paul quote that in Romans 3 in a completely different way because it's still appropriate for the context of what he's talking about that doesn't elevate Psalm 14 to now talking about Jews and Gentiles so no just because he quotes it and it doesn't change or elevate it somehow to a salvation passage now when it's not and here's further proof of this you see if Isaiah 59 was a salvation passage Paul wouldn't need to like quote part of one verse and then quote part of another verse and then quote part of another verse from completely separate chapters of Isaiah you see what Paul's doing here is is borrowing a verse from there and he's borrowing a verse from there now why does he have to do that because if you just read the chapter it wouldn't make any sense with what he's talking about here now when I've done on my channel videos on salvation on the Gospel of John like John chapter 3 I just go through the entire chapter I don't need to borrow a verse from over here and then borrow a verse from over here from John because I'm working through the chapter I can just go through it this verse this verse this verse you can't do that with Isaiah and that's why Paul's having to borrow these quotes just because Isaiah is quoted if we say that it is you know again I'm still hanging on probably but let's just say that it is for the sake of argument just because Paul uses it in a Gospel sort of discussion or about salvation that doesn't elevate Isaiah 59 to a salvation passage and moreover here we're dealing with facts about salvation we're not dealing with instructions when you tell somebody they have to repent of their sins to be safe you're giving them an instruction now Paul's not giving instructions to Jews in this chapter Jesus gave instructions to Jews in John's Gospel when he said whosoever believeth in him not whosoever repent of his sin Paul is describing salvation or describing matters about the Gospel he's not giving instructions on how to be saved that's a very key difference and so no I haven't changed my position on Isaiah 59 and none of my commentary in Romans 11 changes my position in Isaiah 59 it's just that if what you said was true that Paul is quoting Isaiah and elevating it to a Gospel message well it still doesn't say what you wanted to say okay and let me just show you one more example of like quoting a verse outside of its original context let's say you were talking about women's fertility and how some women struggle to have children and whatnot you might think of this verse from Isaiah shall I bring to the birth and not cause to bring forth says the Lord shall I cause to bring forth and shut to the womb so someone were looking at that God opens and closes the womb now if I was talking about a woman who struggles to give birth or conceive rather sorry that verse I'm quoting it from a very different context than how Isaiah is using it would that be wrong for me to use that verse no well no it's perfectly acceptable because A if it wasn't true this verse would be completely useless anyway and B there are other passages in the Bible we can talk to about how God opens and closes the womb in a manner of speaking so it's still correct even though I quoted it in a very different context than what Isaiah is talking about that's why in my video you asked me about Isaiah 59 while I went to Isaiah 59 and I showed you what's in Isaiah 58 and Isaiah 60 which you've had absolutely nothing to say about in this video you want to divert attention away again to Romans chapter 11 to get attention away from the stuff I was talking about to deceive the two people that are stupid enough to listen to you I mean these two people are watching well let's just have a look at who these two people are ok well this person near this shaler says amen faith producers good works apparently oh does it really well then how come when I click on your channel ok your channel has existed for about three years now zero videos doing absolutely sod all for God you've done nothing about the gospel on this channel you're telling me that in three years you can you know sit around watching videos and look at this why are you watching other saved brothers and sisters videos not interested in making myself famous but helping others get support and views oh really you're sitting in front of a computer all day typing things into a keyboard counts as works for your faith does it how impressive and you're telling me that in all that time you couldn't produce one video to tell unsaved Joe who's going to hell to tell him how to be saved on to eternal life idle faith that does absolutely nothing for God and just look at this as well you look at the about page right I mean right as soon as I hear that word I can smell the Hebrew roots right all over you and if I can smell the Hebrew roots I can smell the Judaism and I can smell the work salvation as well ok and if you're going to say faith produces good works and if you don't produce good works you don't have faith well you believe in faith and works for salvation and then let's go on to this second person ok well there's a couple of videos on here I haven't watched them all but they don't really look particularly gospel relevant either so again it makes you wonder what sort of useful works have been produced by her faith once again go on the about page Yahweh Yeshua again it's this Hebrew roots Judaism freaks and weirdos that want to bring Christianity back to Judaism and put you under the law for salvation ok I can smell the Hebrew roots all over these people you know it's just like a nasty stench but anyway you know they're working on my business that's between them and God so 6 minutes there's another point he said his one saved always saved and there's a few times in this video where not a lot but it does bring it up occasionally that like I'm using one saved always saved as my lens to plant on to these verses ok that's the lens that I'm reading well the thing is one saved always saved wasn't really a fundamental part of my going and forth with this guy ok now I mentioned in my previous video that he believes in conditional security I just pointed it out the only real mention that I gave to him directly about the one saved always saved issue specifically is that Jesus said this is the father's will which has sent me that all of them which he has given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again he is talking about eternal life you know stuff there he thinks Jesus is a failure because Jesus will lose some so either Jesus lied or he failed either believe Jesus will fulfil what he said he should do or you don't it's that simple he hasn't commented on that he hasn't replied to that he hasn't said anything about it in this video you know he had nothing to say about that but the thing is if you want to talk about one saved always saved you should have actually gone to one of my videos about one saved always saved and challenged the verses that were actually mentioned about one saved always saved because it's not really a fundamental part of the whether you have to repent of your sins or not because there are people who believe in a form of one saved always saved Calvinist persevere and doctrine that still believe in repent of your sins they're not exactly mutually exclusive so one saved always saved really just a red herring to even bring that up the issue is what does repentance mean for salvation whether you keep it or you can't keep it or lose it or whatever we're talking about the starting point here okay and then this comment this annoyed me he's not looking to exegete okay he's not looking to inter well that's funny because in my video there's a whole section on here a really long detailed section about 20 minutes long nearly going through Isaiah chapter 58 Isaiah chapter 59 which you asked me about and Isaiah chapter 60 we've had absolutely nothing from him about those passages and I even did a tidbit where I even showed you from the screen where eternal life is coupled with you coming to Jesus not Jesus coming to you again we've had nothing from him and he's not even done like a breakdown where he actually goes through Romans 11 and shows you what Paul's even talking about this passage he's trying to justify what he believes based on his ability or his self-perceived ability to win an argument against me not what the Bible says he's offered no breakdown of these passages he's offered no real commentary most of it's just attacking my ability to argue with him rather than what the Bible says he can do is just pointing to verses at the screen like, oh look a squirrel not even offering any commentary and that verse even debunks what you're even talking about that's the best you're going to and yet he wants to tell me I haven't exegeted you do nothing, you have produced nothing in this video it's completely useless other than trying to attack me in how bad I am at interpreting the Bible you don't do any interpretation so I guess nobody can criticise you for not because you don't interpret the Bible because you give us nothing you know it's sort of like when you're at your job the hardworking person gets told off all the time because he does all the real work the guy who's lazy never does anything so he never does anything wrong and never gets in trouble that's what it's a bit like about this guy it's kind of analogous and so as we sort of get towards the end of the stuff he's saying because I say that you turning from your sins is not the same thing as God turning you from your sins he's saying that why would I not want to give Jesus the glory for turning people from their sins first of all when the Bible even refers to anything that's even remotely like turning you from iniquity or turning ungodliness from Jacob it's in the context of Jesus taking away your sins not you turning your life around okay the reason like iniquity has no power over me is because Jesus washed my sins Jesus cleansed me of my sins Jesus justified me therefore my sins are blotted out that's how salvation actually works your gospel that you say I'm not giving Jesus the glory so you want to take credit because you think you're going to heaven because you've turned your life around and cleaned up your life you don't give Jesus the glory for your salvation because you think that you're doing all of these obedience things and you're demonstrating your faith and how you're much better than all these other Christians and you think that you're keeping your salvation because you're not wandering off like everybody else you think you're going to heaven because of how good you are you don't give Jesus the glory it's as simple as that and then it's sort of following on from that point he acts like I ask him a trick question towards the end bring this whole thing to a close towards the end I said there'll be three points hanging over you if you don't address them and well he didn't address them really but there's one where I said he's trying to focus put all the attention on Isaiah 59 which is again he's done again in this video he's trying to direct your attention away from all of these verses you know that are relevant to the subject matter with this one kind of maybe open to interpretation verse you know over here despite the dozens and dozens of verses that were offered in the documentary ok now he says he doesn't want to argue about those verses that's fine but here's a point though ok while I'm on this why do you have to go to a cryptic verse that uses a phrase like you know come to them or come to Zion on to them why do you have to use cryptic verses that use terminology like that why can't you just use the verses that use the word eternal life why can't you just use the verses that mention saved salvation eternal life why do we have to have these cryptic verses and false prophets constantly do this you have a mountain of verses where the word eternal life is appearing over and over and over again and it's coupled with believe believe believe and it's just so repetitive and it just keeps coming over and over again and John's Gospel is hammering this point in but ooh let's see if we can find a verse over there about some cryptic saying about coming to you or Jesus comes to Zion ooh you know let's go with that one and let's just like you know try not to address those and let's try and see if we can distract people's attention away from it you know what stop using these cryptic verses which are so open to interpretation and could literally be talking about anything go to the verses that mention eternal life and I gave him a bunch of you know eternal life verses because I accused him of thinking that Jesus and the Apostles must have preached a false gospel to many people on many occasions because they said to believe without mentioning turning from sin which is a step he says is essential now I said here I cited many verses from John's Gospel but Acts 16 contains another example now let me show you the comment that I actually said because I gave him multiple examples look at what I said here so it got John's Gospel and it's literally the one book in the Bible written with the deliberate intention by the way that the reader would have eternal life Jesus told Nicodemus to believe on the Son didn't tell him to turn from Nicodemus as various sins eternal life was mentioned in that passage now Jesus did point out the sins to the woman at the well that she was an adulteress but it didn't really say stop being an adulteress before you can come to me it just confirmed that the Samaritans believed didn't say they fell on in sackcloth and ashes or turned from all their sins it just says that they believed he didn't tell the Jews in John 5 to turn from their sins he said to believe once again talking about eternal life he only told the lame man to sin no more but he never mentioned believing on him or eternal life to the lame man and same thing with the woman caught in adultery he didn't tell the Jews in John 6 to turn from their transgressions he told them to believe so again it's just over and over example after example after example after example and it's eternal life eternal life eternal life mentioned over and over and over again and even though I didn't even mention Acts 16 here I just brought it up as containing another example sorry there it is I brought it up as well saying that's just another example but that's not what I cited I cited all of these John verses so he's going to argue at 20 something minutes in that this is not really I'm not really proving anything here okay and in his explanation he was trying to make it all about Paul and he said that well just because we have this one example this example in Acts 16 where Paul said believe without mentioning turning from sins that doesn't mean that he preached a false gospel because you know we wouldn't necessarily tell somebody everything about the gospel right so you know that doesn't prove anything but the thing is he tried to make most of the attention about Paul when really the verses that I threw at him were all from John and he not again nothing to say about this it's just like let's don't address it and let's just hope nobody ever brings it up and then we don't have to answer it because we just don't talk about it like he didn't say it it's just so typical with this guy and his case in point here 20 minutes and 55 seconds is that if he wears a t-shirt and if I wear a t-shirt that says Jesus saves I just preach the gospel it doesn't have to say you need to repent of your sins it doesn't have to say those who have faith in Jesus will repent it's just a t-shirt that says Jesus saves so you know based on that he wouldn't accuse because he's saying you don't have to say absolutely everything about salvation you're still essentially preaching the gospel well first of all you wearing a t-shirt saying Jesus saves is not preaching the gospel but that's really a terrible comparison because your t-shirt saying Jesus saves or you know Paul mentioning some facts in Romans 11 their facts about salvation that doesn't answer the question says what must I do to be saved it doesn't answer that question saying Jesus saves doesn't answer that question okay that's just a fact about salvation it's not an instruction so it's a terrible example to give it's not a fair comparison you know when I'm preaching the gospel somebody I don't tell them about the blood propitiation you know being sprinkled they're not going to understand any of that stuff and that's fact about salvation it's not says what must I do to be saved it doesn't answer that question and this comment where I listed these John verses okay they're not walking past Jesus that says Jesus saves on it or I save on it okay these passages are detailed conversations Jesus had every opportunity in these verses in these passages to give the correct instructions to this question Act 16 is literally that question says what must I do to be saved well if repenting of sin is so important you should have bloody mentioned it because he didn't mention it he said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved these John passages Jesus is giving instructions believe on me, believe on me, believe on me that's something that you are commanded to do to be saved just saying Jesus saves does not sufficiently preach the gospel because lots of people believe in Jesus saves and they're going to be filed under many people shall say on to me that day Lord Lord a lot of people don't have a problem with saying that Jesus saves there are a lot of unsaved people who will happily say yes and amen to that the gospel is based on Act 16 says what must I do well okay find me a passage where somebody even asks that question and they say turn from your sins and you know the examples of where we actually have works in response to that question because a couple of people ask Jesus that question well first of all the lawyer was trying to tempt him when Jesus gave him a bunch of works to do the lawyer was trying to tempt him the lawyer was not interested in an answer and the rich young ruler again Jesus gave him a bunch of works to do but he also said there's none good but God and the rich man still claimed to have observed all those things since his youth so even when works is coupled with giving eternal life it's a bad example okay this is this doesn't answer the question you've avoided the question you've completely dodged the question and it's not like Act 16 is a one-off example I gave you loads of examples this is something that's just happening over and over again you've just dodged it completely okay which you know what else would we expect him to do I guess if he dodges the question nobody can attack him for talking nonsense he attacks me for my poor arguments well he doesn't have to argue about it really and then the last thing that he says and it's just the cherry on the cake really that I challenged him to address why you say that you believe in faith alone if you also contend for faith plus repent of your sins and how this is even consistent and he acts like this is like a trick question that I'm asking to trap him or something because he says the way I'm phrasing it that I know I'm misrepresenting them because I know I know that he doesn't teach faith plus repent of your sins well you've spent a whole video explaining why you do believe in repent of your sins you've spent all these comments saying that we have to repent of our sins if you have to repent of our sins you don't believe in faith so you're saying I know what he teaches well yeah I know that you're a hypocrite who talks out on both sides of your mouth and you say in one breath we're saved by faith alone and then you say in another breath you must turn from your sins and by the way if your faith really is genuine you will have works by the way if you don't have works you don't have faith so you do have to have works to be saved you talk out on both sides of your mouth and it's nothing new because the Catholics do the same thing the Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing look you can go on the internet and you can find articles written by Catholics and articles written by the watchtower saying eternal life is a free gift it's this great gift that Jesus has bought for us but by the way you know if you do have the faith and it is a free gift these things will follow because Jesus also commands so you still have to do these works but it is a free gift both sides of the mouth there's nothing different about what he's saying here this is not a trick question Jonah 3.10 we looked at it earlier Jonah 3.10 God saw their works that they turned from their evil way it was their works so this is not a trick question I'm asking you do you really believe in faith alone you contend for faith alone you give lip service to it when you actually believe in faith plus works there's nothing new about it he has the same mentality and the same argument points the same boring argument that unsaved people constantly come up with well we won't say it's faith on works because people throw these verses from Paul but you are going to have the works if you are really saving you still have the works if you've got faith it's still by faith alone you don't really believe it's by faith alone do you you talk out of both sides of your mouth and you know really what else would I expect from somebody who just put something on the screen like this doesn't bother to actually quote it and provide the full verse and when we go to it it's got nothing to do with whatever the hell you're talking about and it even dismantles what you're even saying okay and while I'm on the topic of him talking out of both sides of his mouth let me show you how too faced he is because you see when he's dealing with his fans and his sicker fans he's saying things like it's amazing how brilliant these people can just believe a bunch of jumble and confusion so he describes everything that I said in that video basically as jumble and confusion okay and he says that I changed the story and basically receive no points and you know I need to look a little deeper and you know really consider the implications of our conversation so when he's talking to his sicker fans it's oh you know he believes all sorts of confusion it's all jumble you know he goes around in circles he changes his story well the thing is the very first thing that he said to me reply to that video was I appreciate your clarity and research so when he's dealing with me directly apparently I use a lot of clarity and research but then when he's dealing with his sicker fans it's a load of jumble and confusion that makes no sense even though it's clarity and research apparently you know he's too faced he talks out of both sides of his mouth and so need I say any more about this guy I mean really you know when I look back I'm always looking you know I'm always reflecting on my arguments and thinking what could I have done better and what could I have answered differently I just should have refused to answer him about Romans 11 I just should have said sorry you've had the maximum admonitions because you know I constantly have this attitude that I just think if I beat people over the head with the Bible enough times they'll finally get it but all it does it's just more excuses for them to throw these straw men to manipulate the argument and to just throw your attention away from a bunch of other verses and not address some fundamental points that I quoted and just pretend it will all blow away and of course as long as you've got Tweedle Dum and Tweedle D here to pat you on the back and tell you how great you were you know at least somebody tells you you've done a good job so you know this is not a direct response to him I'm not looking for a reply from him I've got nothing more to say to him at this point I'm not having anything more to I've got nothing more to say to him you know he can die in his hands because he thinks he's going to get into heaven because of how good he is well there's none good but God deal with it people sinned in the Bible still made it to heaven wasn't right but it still happened so I hope that's really cleared the air for anybody who subscribed to me who's watched his video and then you know acts like he got me or whatever and I hope that this has exposed you to just the manipulative tactics that these people use and just how wicked they are and then he plants this on me see he's making it sound like I'm going around in circles and I'm trying to like avoid things or you know try and do these tricks well the thing is how much time have I now spent going through these passages and just showing the words that it uses and trying to answer all these questions and you know the first thing he ever said to me when he started saying to me in these comments is he kept saying like don't run don't run okay I think he said it again somewhere er I can't find it now I'm sure he said it twice but he's saying like don't run like as if he thinks I'm going to like I've got something to hide or but you know the thing is I show my face on the camera I show you all the verses on the screen okay and you know who's trying to hide something the guy that doesn't show his face and just puts this on the screen or you know the person who actually shows you who he is and what he's actually going through and shows you all these verses this guy is a hypocrite so if he thinks that he has to turn from his all his sins to be saved well he's not saved then is he it's as simple as that he is not going to heaven by the very gospel he professes they don't believe the gospel he doesn't believe that Jesus will lose nothing that he gave eternal life to he doesn't believe that Jesus will in no wise cast out he does not believe that okay and you know when he talks about losing salvation he'll point to all these verses about not continuing in the faith he clearly explains that he who believes has not believed that's in John and also in John Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not so if you had faith and you stop having faith and you don't continue in the faith and your file is not saved the bible also files you as you did not believe you had a vain belief whatever belief you had it was vain it was not on to eternal life you were never a believer that's how the bible frames this argument so you know if he's too stupid that's his problem but the thing is I wouldn't use the repentance verses to argue one saved always saved and he said absolutely nothing in this video about the verses that I would actually use to prove it so that's all that I've got to say about this guy so you know if anybody sees him commenting on my channel just ignore him because why waste his time why add to his condemnation he's not going to get saved he's not going to change his mind he's not going to repent of his false repentance you know he is unjust still