So I think the easiest bit to kick this off would be his video about repentance and what repentance means. I'm going to show you why this is a good place to start. Now in my experience of dealing with different Gospels out there and everybody's different points of view, whatever persuasion of Christianity is from, even though they all disagree on the specifics like the sacraments and this that and the other, they all agree on repent of your sins to be saved. So my experience has taught me always look out for that because if you can find that out then the chances are pretty high that there's a false gospel in there somewhere, okay? Even if at first they might seem like they're giving lip service to faith alone. Now I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time dealing with repentance. It's just a very good entry point because obviously repentance, whatever it means, it's when someone starts their Christian journey. And so understanding his starting point will then understand why everything else that he says about, oh, that's some faith alone is false. So if you want more information on the repentance issue, I have done a video titled Repentance for Salvation, Biblical Salvation Settled Ones and For All and it's almost seven hours long. It's a very, very long video. I've gone into so much detail and that's why I'm only going to be very brief about it here because I've already done the homework on this, okay? So here I'm just going to introduce this video about this false teaching about repentance that's out there that loads of people are teaching. So just have a look at this. There are many false teachers out there teaching that repentance does not mean turning from sins. These people are ravenous wolves who will get you if you don't know any better. They're reprobates and they're dangerous men and they need to be avoided at all costs. They'll say that repentance just means to change your mind about who Jesus is and believe in him and that you don't have to repent of sin. So he introduces this video essentially saying that there are all these people out there, which he includes me in his category of false prophets, teaching that repentance doesn't mean turning from sin, okay? So there's all these false people going around saying that repentance just means to change your mind about who Jesus is. It doesn't mean turn from all of your sins. Well, what's so laughable about this folks is if there are all these people saying that I want to know who they are and where they are because I can't find them. Because the vast majority of Christians think that repentance means to turn from your sins to be saved. Just ask most Christians if they believe that. That's what everybody believes. This is the phrase that's being parroted by most famous preachers, repent of your sins to be saved. So no, there aren't loads of false people going around saying this. There are a handful of people here and there saying this. And what's so laughable about this folks is that I did a 15 minute clip on my channel Repent of Your Sins to be saved Heresy Monsage, where I included him saying that same thing that there's all these false people teaching that repentance doesn't mean from sin. I've included that in a 15 minute video that's just full of Loads of different preachers and well-known YouTube channels and well-known Theologians and Christian preachers all saying repentance of your sins to be saved over and over again Whatever persuasion of Christianity they're from so people like Leonard Ravenhill, Paul Washer, Charles Lawson, Billy Graham and Franklin Graham, Ray Comfort, Tim Conway, Jesse Morel, somebody that he yokes up with called Hal Chaffee. Francis Chan, although he doesn't quite use the lingo, but he essentially believes it. You've got Mike Schmitz who's a Roman Catholic. He says repent of your sins to be saved. Bible Flockbox is a well-known very popular YouTube channel. He's a Seventh Day Adventist and he believes in repent of your sins to be saved. I even got a clip in this video of Joel Osteen saying repent of your sins and So folks there aren't loads of false preachers going around saying that repentance doesn't mean turning from sin. There are loads of false preachers going around saying that repentance means turning from sin. That's what majority of Christians believe and I know that because even when you go out soul-winning and you ask these Christians Do you believe it's faith alone? Yep. Yep. Do you believe, you know, it's a gift? Yep. Yep. Do you believe that repentance means turn from all of your sins? Yep. Yep. That's what most Christians believe that I bump into folks. The false definition of repentance that's so rampant in Christianity is the one that says turn from your sins to be saved. And funnily enough the Bible never says the verbatim phrase repent of your sins. The Book of Mormon says it plenty of times though folks and I demonstrated that in my repentance for salvation video. So we'll just keep listening to him bang on about repentance some more before we get to the definition of what it really is. And yes, it's true that the Greek word for repent is metanoia, which just means to change your mind. But the question is change your mind about what? Well, it's to change your mind about sin and I'm gonna prove that to you today. But now the first objection some will have is that well the book of John doesn't mention repentance even once. But this is an absurdly ridiculous way of studying the Bible and let me show you why this is such poor reasoning. I could say well the book of John doesn't mention the word sovereignty even once. So are we to assume that John didn't believe in God's sovereignty? No, we would never say that. Well, John also didn't mention anything about God being omniscient or omnipotent. So are we to say that John didn't believe that God was all-knowing or all-powerful? No, this is foolishness. But this is exactly the sort of games that people try to play with the Word of God. And not even to mention that John wrote four other books in the Bible. And he most certainly mentioned repentance from sin in the book of Revelation numerous times as I'm about to show you. So just a bit of background to the argument that he was dealing with about John's gospel not mentioning repentance. It comes from John 2031 and it says but these are all written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And that believing you might have life through his name and so essentially John's gospel is the one book in the Bible that's written specifically to tell you how to have eternal life. That's why it's written. Okay. Now, I did answer this logical conundrum in my repentance for salvation video. So please do check it out if you want more information about this, but we'll be brief here. So John's gospel never mentions repentance one time. So if repentance means turning from sin and the book that's written to tell us how to have eternal life doesn't mention it, then presumably we don't need to do it for eternal life. That's what a lot of faith alone advocates might say. But then he answers that by saying that the same John who wrote that gospel also wrote the book of Revelation and mentioned repentance multiple times throughout the book of Revelation. Okay, so we can't just say that we don't need to do it when other books do tell us to do it. And obviously not just the book of Revelation, but the other Gospels and the book of Acts as well. And then it sounds like he's making a reasonable argument because he further qualifies this by pointing out that John's gospel never mentions God's sovereignty or his omnipotence, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't have those qualities. So it sounds like quite a reasonable argument at first. But the problem is, though, is that this issue here of, you know, if it's something like God's sovereignty, well, this deals with facts about God or just something that is true, not something that's an instruction. Now, we can't expect facts to be repeated in every book. Otherwise, the Bible would be far too big. It would be far too repetitive or it could only have one book in it. So obviously, if one book says God is this or God is that, we don't expect another book to have to repeat it for it to be true. Absolutely, that is correct. But the problem is, when we when we turn to the issue of repentance, though, we're no longer dealing with facts or truths as much as we're actually dealing with instructions that you have to do for a particular purpose to be carried out. That's the difference. OK. And that's where his reasoning starts to crumble. So we have quite a serious problem here because the bottom line is we need to know what instructions we must do to be saved on to eternal life. This is too important to not know this. We have to know how this can be achieved. Now, John's Gospel is the only book in the Bible that specifically declares itself to be written for this purpose. No other book in the Bible makes that claim. OK. Let me give you a visual illustration to try and make my point simple. Let's suppose I asked you to build this car. OK. This Lego car. And I gave you some instructions and said, here you go, get on with it. Well, you would probably expect that as soon as you see instructions like this, you open the cover and it starts at what you must do first. So the first page, step one, have the right parts, put the simple bits together first, then step two on the next bit. And then after that on the next page, step three and then step four and so on. Now, if I instead gave you instructions where you have to scroll all the way down here for step one and then all the way up here for step two and then all the way down here for step three and then all the way down here for step four and then back up again. And then it didn't have any numbers on it either. You would be so confused as to how to assemble this. You would not you would not have any idea at all. And everybody, if I asked multiple people to do this, everybody would just end up in a complete mess because nobody would know what instructions to follow. OK. A simple set of instructions should go in a nice sensible order. Now, let's say that I asked you to build this car, but instead the instructions I gave you with this desk. Well, again, we have the same problem as if it is if the steps didn't go in order. You wouldn't be able to use these instructions to make a car. Now, if I asked you to make a desk, these would be very helpful instructions. But to make this Lego car, they're not going to help you at all. OK. So it wouldn't be very fair on me to give you instructions that either you can't just read in a sensible order or I give you the wrong instructions that aren't written for the purpose of which I'm asking you to do. I hope you see my illustration there. Now, the problem with the PUC on apologetics and indeed anybody with a false salvation is that they read the Bible like this, like a convoluted conspiracy board with post-it notes all over the place. And it's all like, well, over here, it does say believe. Yes, so we can see that we need to believe. But then all the way down here, he mentions baptism. And then all the way over here, someone talks about denying self. And then all the way over here, someone talks about walking in the spirit and all the way up here, someone talks about church discipline and all the way over here. And so this is how they read the Bible. And so everybody that has a false salvation ends up with their own version of what works we need to do or how we even know what they were saved because nobody can read the Bible like this. OK, it doesn't even make sense to anybody to read it this way. And this is why people get confused with works based salvation. And so how is John's Gospel written? Well, yes, yes, it is written to tell you how to be saved. But strictly speaking, it's not written in the same way as the Lego Instruction Manual that I showed you. OK. A gospel is a written testimony or a written account, if you like, of different things that Jesus said and did in conversations that he had with specific people. Now, over and over again in John's Gospel, Jesus told people to believe on him. That happened in multiple occasions to multiple different people. But in his conversation with Nicodemus, he never told Nicodemus or even he never told the woman at the well to get baptized or join a fellowship or to take communion or deny themselves or turn from their sins. So if you take those conversations as the isolated conversations that Jesus had with those specific people, he didn't talk about those things. OK. And even in a similar manner, like in Acts 16, the prison keeper asks a very clear question. What must I do to be saved? OK. That's a simple question and it needs a good answer. Well, all the apostle said to him was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be safe. Now, yes, they did baptise him later, but baptism wasn't included in the instruction, though it wasn't the reply to the question. It was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and now shall be saved. Again, no mention of fellowship, no mention of turning from all of your sins, no mention of getting baptized or taking communion or any of that kind of stuff. And so herein lies the problem. If you absolutely insist that getting baptized and turning from all of your sins and walking in the spirit and picking up your cross daily and all that kind of thing are necessary components of the Gospel. You have to accuse Jesus and the apostles of not preaching the Gospel correctly to multiple people multiple times. Now, you can say, well, yes, but over here, Peter tells the church to do such and such. Yes, but that's not what Jesus told the woman at the well and she needed to know how to have eternal life. And that's what John's Gospel is written for. And so furthermore, you then have to accuse John of writing a useless book really that didn't fulfill the purpose for which it was written. If turning from sins is so important, for example, Jesus should have mentioned it to multiple times in John's Gospel. Now, we hear these repent of your sins type preachers talk about it all the time, but for some reason we don't see Jesus talking about it even though it's supposed to be really, really important. Now, someone might then reply to me and say something along the lines of, well, wait a moment, because didn't Jesus say, sin no more in John's Gospel also? So isn't that then something we have to do for eternal life? Well, yes, he did say in John's Gospel, he said it to the woman caught in adultery in John chapter eight and the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, whom he healed, that was in John chapter five. However, in those isolated conversations that Jesus had with those specific individual people, Jesus never mentioned believing on him and he never mentioned eternal life. Now, if sinning no more was such an important and component of eternal life and salvation, Jesus should have joined these things together if it was such an essential component, but he didn't. He didn't connect those things with eternal life itself because it's just, it's not the context of the conversation that he had with those people.  But his argument is that there are plenty of other examples where repentance does mean turning from sin though. So just because it doesn't in the Genesis example doesn't mean that that's not what it generally means. And it'll point to like Simon the Sorcerer in Acts chapter eight, for example, or the letters to the churches in Revelation two and three. So the problem isn't exactly that what he says is entirely wrong. The problem is that how he applies it and then he then makes it about salvation when repentance for salvation is not the same thing as repenting for sin. Now, it is true that sometimes repentance does mean turning from sins, absolutely, but not in every context. Now, and he's already pointed it out in his video but he did miss these essential points. Now, Simon the Sorcerer in Acts chapter eight already believed and was baptized before he was told to repent. Moreover, he was not told to repent of all of his sins. He was told to repent of a specific wickedness. Okay, so this is not turned from all of your sins that thou shall be saved. He already believed this was a specific wickedness that he as a believer needed to turn from. Okay, when Jesus told several churches to repent in Revelation as well, he did not tell them to turn from all of their sins to be saved. These were churches, so they were already believers. He wasn't preaching to the unsaved or trying to win the lost. These were already established churches of believers. And again, it was specific sins in different churches that he told them to repent of not turning from all of their sins. Okay? So to wrap up this point then, what about repentance specifically for salvation? So you might think of, I have not come to call the righteous but to call sinners to repentance or there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than a righteous man who needs no repentance.  John the Baptist, for example, preached repentance for the remission of sins as did the apostles in Acts. Now that last one there is crucial because I think if you can understand that last one, all of that will start to make sense. So I think the best place to prove this would be Matthew 21. Now, bearing in mind, I have started verse 31 a little bit later. There's a bit I've chopped off because before that Jesus does use a parable where he does explain about doing the will of the father which people like Epi Eusion were trying to use and make it about work salvation. I'm not gonna deal with that right now. I'll just try and finish off this repentance issue so that we can move on to Ossas. And then if I have more time towards the end, I can come back to some of those passages as sort of a miscellaneous thing. So I might be able to deal with that parable later. I'm not gonna deal with it right now. So Jesus said onto them, it says in 21 32, Verily I say unto you that, and watch this, the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. Now what are the publicans and harlots? Well, we know from, we know harlots certainly but we know also about the publicans as well that these are types of sinners. Okay, because harlots, obviously that's somewhat obvious. Publicans, the Pharisees look like when they asked Jesus, why do you hang around with sinners when he was talking to the publicans? So the publicans and harlots, they're types of sinners and they go into the kingdom of God before you which you can just make that equivalent to heaven if you like. Well then the question is why? Okay, why do they go into the kingdom of heaven before you? Bear in mind that Jesus is talking to the chief priests and Pharisees, okay? Well, John came onto you in the way of righteousness and watch this, you believed him not, okay? But then it says the publicans and harlots believed him. So notice it doesn't say turn from their sins, okay? That's not what it says. It just doesn't say that at all, it says they believed him. And you, when you had seen it, watch this, repented, so there's that key word there, not afterward that you might believe him. So according to Matthew 21, 31, sorry 21, 31, 31, 31, what is the repentance that the chief priests didn't do that the publicans and harlots did? Well, it's quite simple. It doesn't say that they turned from being harlots or turned from their sins as publicans, it says that they believe him. That's the repentance. Now just in case someone says that's not specifically the repentance that John actually preached though, you know, maybe John did still tell them to turn from their sins when he preached repent. Well, just to further qualify that, Acts 19.4, this is Paul then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying onto the people, well, what did he say onto them? That they should believe on him, which is to come after him. So again, no mention of turning from sins, it's believing on him. That's the repentance that John preached. John preached that they should believe on the Christ that was to come after John. The publicans and harlots, types of sinners, believed him, that they did repent. Whereas the chief priests and Pharisees, they did not repent, they did not believe, okay? So repentance for salvation is to believe on Christ. And just to further qualify that Acts 2, verse 38, this is another repentance go to turn from your sins verse that they use. Peter says repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. So again, they assume that when Peter said repent there that he meant turn from all of your sins. The problem with that folks is that again, look what follows the repentance. After repentance, there's baptism, okay? So they get baptized after they repent and then they get baptized. And then they do that for the remission of sins and then they shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. And these are the key points. This is what follows the repentance that Peter was preaching, whatever he meant by that. Well, if we compare scripture with scripture, we can point baptism to, let's say, Mark 16, 16, where it's he that believes on him and is baptized. So again, it doesn't say he that turns from his sins and is baptized, he that believes on him. Or also you could go to Acts 8, 36 to 37. And it says, and they, as they went on their way, sorry, shifted it a bit there, they came onto a certain water and the eunuch said, see here is water, what does hinder me to be baptized? So what's stopping me from being baptized? He asks. And Philip says, well, have you turned from all of your sins?  Philip said, if you believe with all your heart, you may, you may be baptized. So we see from comparing Acts 2 with Mark 16 and Acts 8 that baptism follows belief. It doesn't follow turning from sin. And then what about the gift of the Holy Ghost? Well, well, then we can point to John chapter 7, 38, 39. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this speak he of the spirit, which watch this, they that believe on him should receive. So we see that baptism follows belief, according to Mark 16 and Acts 8, we see that the Holy Spirit follows belief according to John 7. So that's the repentance once again that Peter preached about. If it's referring to salvation, it's to turn from not believing the gospel or from not believing on the Christ, to believing on Christ. That's the repentance that Peter preached about. That's the repentance that John preached about. So that's all I'm gonna say on that for now so that we can move on to OSAS. If you want more information, again, as I mentioned earlier, look at my repentance for salvation video. There's seven hours of material there almost. So a good place to start on OSAS would be his video on John 10, 28, where he's gonna refute one saved or we save, because John 10 is probably one of our best or first go-to passages on eternal security. So naturally this is one that we're gonna head with first. So he's obviously got to answer it and try and refute it. Now I'm not gonna play large chunks of the video because as much as I do want to prove all things and show that I'm not making stuff up, I like to show what he's actually saying, but unfortunately if I show everything that he says, my video ends up becoming ridiculously long because it's got to be at least as long as everything he says plus what I have to say. So I'll just show you his introduction for about 25 seconds and then we'll just quickly run through the transcript to see everything else that he's saying. One of the top verses that people use to support one saved always saved is John 10, 28. And this is so frustrating to me because they've taken what was meant to be an assurance for a committed follower of Jesus and they've turned it into something that it's not. They turned it into an assurance for somebody who has either walked away or is not walking with Christ and that was never what it was meant to be and I'm gonna prove that to you. So the way that he's gonna frame this argument is that when it says no one will snatch them out of my hand, that doesn't just mean any single person that ever comes to him. There's a specific condition that's involved here. Now you'll explain that condition by quoting the previous verse 27 where Jesus says, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. So he emphasizes the word follow and underneath that that includes you turning from all of your sins, all that kind of thing. All of that is encapsulated in following him. It's not just believing in him. There's more to it than that. That's the premise of what he's saying. He then goes on to further explain that when it says no one will snatch them out of my hand. People will tell him that that includes oneself but then he refutes that because his argument is you cannot snatch yourself. You can snatch something else or you can snatch other people.  So he's saying that this can't apply to you walking away from the faith essentially. And he goes on to further qualify that from an earlier verse, verse 12, where it says that it's the wolf that snatches them and scatters them. So if someone loses their salvation it's not that they're snatching themselves rather the wolf can snatch them but in order for the wolf to snatch them they've already had to leave Jesus. They must not be following him anymore. That's how he's framing the argument. So then he goes on to give a visual illustration. There's these sheep there. There's Jesus. Jesus is protecting the sheep and there is a wolf but so long as they're following the shepherd they're okay, the shepherd's going to protect them. But then if the sheep stops following the shepherd and walks away, wanders away then the sheep is no longer under the shepherd's protection. And so now they're vulnerable to the wolf snatching them. And then he'll go on to explain where people might bring up the parallel kind of issue from Luke 15 where Jesus talks about the lost sheep out of the hundred that leaves the 99 and Jesus will go back for his sheep. And so he interprets that as being a sinner turning back to Jesus. That's how he interprets that. So we're gonna break down the reasoning that he's using because what I find is the arguments or the way that he's trying to frame how this works doesn't really align with the way that Jesus framed it in the gospels. So at the beginning of John chapter 10 this is where Jesus introduces this theme of the sheep and the shepherd. And it is in the context of the salvation because a few verses later he's gonna mention eternal life. That is the overall subject of what he's talking about. He just doesn't say that straight away when he introduces this concept and he's giving them this parable if you like. So first of all it establishes the fact that Jesus is the true shepherd. He enters by the door whereas other people who will try and get in are thieves and robbers, okay? So Jesus is the legitimate way in if you like which there's not really any controversy there. And then in verse three so what we see here is that the sheep hear his voice and it also says that he calls his own sheep by name and he leads them out. And you could say he leads them out of the sheepfold mentioned in verse one. So they were in the sheepfold. Thieves will try and break him but only the shepherd can go through the door and he will lead the sheep out because they follow his voice. They don't follow the thieves and the robbers if you like, they know the voice to follow. And then when he puts forth his own sheep it says in verse four he goes before them and his sheep follow him for they know his voice, okay? So what you'll notice so far that this is kind of a one way relationship in the sense this one dimensional is what I mean. The shepherd's leading the sheep. The sheep follow him, okay? It's fairly one dimensional. Now it says in verse five a stranger will they not follow but will flee from him for they know not the voice of strangers. So if anybody tries to leave the sheep away from the shepherd they simply will not follow him, okay? Now I'll just change that there to one dimensional so it makes a bit more sense. So then Jesus goes on, it goes on to explain, sorry in verse six that they didn't understand the parable that Jesus spoke. And then Jesus goes on to say in verse seven I am the door of the sheep. So instead of using the word shepherd now he's using the word door and he's about to get on to the crux of the matter, salvation. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers but the sheep did not hear them, okay? This is another crucial bit. So all the people that are trying to break in can get the sheep which you could say false prophets with their other truths or their other religions or their other ways into heaven if you like. The sheep didn't hear them. The sheep heard the voice of the shepherd. Jesus goes on to clarify this meaning of being the door. So I am the door. By me if any man entering he shall be saved. And notice that this is the condition here. This is the if, okay? Because a PUC on likes to point all the ifs out. It says if any man enter in. So it doesn't say if he follow me where so ever I go up here down there left right I go all the way over there. I go all the way down here. They will follow me and they will do as I say constantly throughout the entire journey. That's not what's being said here. It's simply if any man enter in.  There is just something. You walk through the door. Soon as you go through the door you find pasture it goes on to say. So this is simple. It's simple as an entrance. So just like Jesus compares salvation to drinking a glass of water or eating a piece of bread and you will never hunger, you will never thirst. You know, simple that just one lot of water you shall never thirst. So this is very, very simple. Okay, now this is important because this is all setting the context of what it means to follow him.  We'll see it means we've got to follow him and then they'll just pick all these other random bits around the Bible that they think that's what that means for eternal life. And we sort of touched upon that about how he's reading the Bible like it's a conspiracy theory board rather than clear instructions. Now this is an isolated conversation that Jesus is having with a particular group of individuals. They don't necessarily know all of the things that he's been speaking to his disciples about, about doing this and obeying his commandments and this and that and the other. They've got no background to that. This is the conversation that they're having with Jesus. And Jesus is saying, enter the door and he shall be saved.  That's not being offered by this passage, okay? And they're building on the issue of entering the door and being saved. Jesus continues the theme of salvation by relating it to life, which we assume means life everlasting is. So the thief comes not but to steal and kill and to destroy. I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly. And he's just said, enter the door, you shall find pasture.  That's what it means to have life, okay? This is another important bit in verse 11. I am the good shepherd and I give my life for the sheep essentially. I'm sorry, I've just paraphrased it slightly there but that's important because sometimes these work salvation types will bring up things like you've got to deny yourself and pick up your cross to be saved. Well, no, actually, Jesus went to the cross for our salvation. We don't go to our own cross for salvation. Otherwise, what did Jesus do it for? Jesus lays his life down for the sheep for salvation anyway, okay? Now, Jesus then uses this in verse 12 what Epucio was talking about with the wolf. So, he that is a highling, somebody who's not the shepherd, who's owned the sheep or not. So the sheep, the sheep don't belong to a highling. He's just someone who's paid to do a job. Sees the wolf coming and then it says he leaves the sheep and flees. And then the wolf catches them and scatters the sheep. And so that's where the wolf comes in. So the wolf tries to devour the sheep. The wolf tries to catch them which I believe in the Bible translation that Epucio and he's reading it says snatch. You know, we could argue about semantics but snatch catches. The wolf seems to come for the sheep but because Jesus is the good shepherd, he's not going to allow the wolf to come, okay? So the wolf cannot get to the sheep because the good shepherd protects them. Now, Jesus doesn't really explain exactly who the highlings represent. You wouldn't necessarily call them false messiahs or false prophets necessarily because you might lump them under the category of the thieves that were trying to break into the sheepfold earlier in the chapter. But a highling would be someone who presumably is supposed to do the same job as a shepherd but doesn't fulfill all of his duties because he's just there for the salary. He doesn't actually care for the sheep. And so the point is that Jesus actually cares for the sheep and he says that in, he points that out, a highling cares not for the sheep in 13 but once again, just in case you missed it before, Jesus is the good shepherd there in verse 14 and it says he knows his sheep so I know my sheep and I'm known of mine. An emphasis on the word my, okay? Because this is where conditional security is gonna start to crumble once we can start to grasp this in light of the whole chapter because the word my there, this my sheep implies that there is a concept of ownership, okay? And this is gonna be very important because although he's not mentioned the free will argument from what I could see in this video, that's something that a lot of conditional security folk bring up that you have the free will to wander away and that's gonna cause some problems in light of this chapter so we'll revisit that in a moment. And just in case you missed it before he again repeats himself that he lays down his life for the sheep, okay? We don't surrender our life to Christ to be saved. He surrendered his life for our salvation. Just to point that out. And then the next verse, verse 16, I personally think this is more in reference to the bringing in of the Gentiles that he goes on to say there are other sheep that I have which are not of this fold that he must bring in and bring them under one shepherd but there's nothing out of that verse that we particularly need for what we're discussing here. And then verse 25 and 26 are very crucial here. Jesus answered, you believed not. So the people that he's talking to, they've seen the works that Jesus has done. Bear in mind he's doing the works. These works bear witness of him. So Jesus isn't just some random dude who comes along and says look at me everybody, I'm Christ. Just believe me because I say so. Like a lot of people with a Messiah complex have done throughout history. No, the works that Jesus does actually bear witness of him. The people had seen his miracles. He displayed his works, but they did not believe. Well, why didn't they believe? You believe not because you are not of my sheep. As I said on to you, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. So again, a PUC on apologetics wants to pick up on this word follow and make all this huge doctrine about the commandments and all the stuff that you've got to be doing to be saved. But no, because verse 26 answers the context of verse 27, that the sheep follow him because they believe. But the group that Jesus are talking to, they're not of his sheep because they don't believe. Okay, so that's who the sheep are that follow Jesus. So let the Bible be its own dictionary. The sheep that follow Jesus are the ones that see Jesus' works and believe him. And the ones that are not his sheep, they're the ones that don't believe him. It's not the sheep that are in the same pasture as the other sheep, but won't follow him when he commands them. That's not offered by this chapter. That type of a sheep is not hypothesized here at all. This chapter has only given us two types of sheep to work with. We have the sheep that follow the voice of the shepherd. They are my sheep, Jesus said. They believe him. They enter the door of the pasture. The second type of sheep are they that don't belong to Jesus according to verse 26. They see his works, but they don't believe him. Now, Epiucion apologetics and people like him, essentially what they do is they create a third type of sheep, which is a sheep that belongs to Jesus for some reason. They had salvation at a time for whatever reason, but for them, for what other reason doesn't follow his voice. And so because they don't follow his voice, they wander away and get devoured by the wolf. The problem with that though, folks, is that Jesus has not hypothesized this type of sheep at all. There is no such sheep mentioned in this passage. We only have two types. The ones that follow the voice of the shepherd and the ones that don't. And the ones that don't are the ones that don't believe him, but the ones that do, all they have to do is enter into the door and they find pasture. It really is that simple. This is not complicated at all. There is nothing about the sheep doing all of his commandments and doing this, that and the other. Okay. And so then this sets up the context and the premise behind what he means by verse 28, that he gives them eternal life. So we're clearly dealing with eternal life here. This is not just something that's temporal. They shall never perish, right? And this is not while they shall never perish so long as they keep following me and don't stop following me. No, it just says they shall never perish my sheep. I give them eternal life. They're his sheep. They belong to him. They have that belonging. It's very important that you understand that. And so no man shall pluck them out of his hand because they belong to him. His hand holds them. And then he repeats that essentially in verse 29, that my father gave them me. Okay. And by the way, his father is greater than all. No man is able to pluck them from out of my father's hand. So there's something going on there. They're holding onto what is theirs. So they are my sheep. He holds onto what belongs to him. They belong to the father. They belong to the son. So their hand holds onto the sheep because it's their sheep. It's their property. Okay. And so this is where conditional security just completely falls apart because they just, they don't understand this concept of ownership or how sheping actually works. And well, you have free will to wander away. There are all sorts of problems with that argument. And so just revisiting some points from earlier in the chapter then, this was one dimensional, the sheep hear and obey his voice. They simply do not follow a stranger's voice. The idea that sheep follow him for a bit and then stop following him and start looking around. That's not offered by this chapter at all. It's just not hypothesized. This is entirely one dimensional. His sheep follow him. It's as simple as that. So if the sheep were to wander away or if they're led by a stranger's voice, well then, according to this one dimensional saying here, they're not his sheep by definition. And so someone who wanders from the faith, they don't lose their salvation. They were never saved because they did not follow the voice of the shepherd. They did not hear his voice. They wandered off. They were just trying to, they were among sheep in the pasture, but they weren't his sheep though. Okay. Now something then that conditional security will say is, but God gave us free will. We can choose to walk away. Well, again, this violates verse 14 because verse 14, it says that the good shepherd knows my sheep and I'm known of mine. Okay. There's ownership going on there.  So let's just stop and think about this logically. Okay. Think about a sheep in a field. This box here, that's a field. Okay. Now, does a sheep have free will? Okay. Because remember, if we're going to use the free will argument that we can choose to walk away from Christ, well, well, does the sheep have free will? Well, it has some degree of free will. Okay. It's got a big field to wander around in so we could walk up here. Okay. Or he could walk all the way over here or he could walk all the way over to the left. So yes, to an extent the sheep can roam over here, roam over there, this, that, go around the place. But he's still confined to the limits of the field. Okay. There's a reason why fields of sheep have walls and barbed fence around them. Okay. The sheep is not supposed to be allowed to leave the field. All right. The gates, the wall, that's all there to keep the sheep. So yes, the sheep can go over here and go over there but only within the confines that God has set, only within the field. Okay. Now in the real world of shepherding, at some point this field, the grass is gonna all be consumed by the sheep in it. So the shepherd is gonna have to move the sheep into another pasture that's got more grass readily available for them to eat. Okay. So the way that Epeucion framed his argument is that the shepherd's walking in the front and he's just walking forwards, not really caring what happens behind him. And so it's up to the sheep to then follow him. But then if you wander away, if you're not hearing the voice of the shepherd, then a wolf will devour you. This is the argument that he set up. The problem with his argument though, folks, is that according to the way that John's gospel actually frames it, the wolf is not sat away somewhere waiting for stray sheep that he can devour later. The wolf actually comes to the sheep. And so that's why the shepherd has to protect them as opposed to a hiling because that's what John chapter 1012 said. Here is a hiling and not the shepherd who's owned the sheep or not, sees the wolf coming. So it's not that stray sheep are wandering off and then the wolf gets them later. The wolf is coming towards them where they are. Okay. And so a hiling would leave the sheep and flee and then the wolf would catch them, not just one sheep, not one stray sheep, but all the sheep that belong to the shepherd. The wolf would get them. That's why Jesus is the good shepherd because he's not going to allow that to happen. And so this is just this wolf that's out there waiting for whatever sheep happens to go astray. That's just simply not conceptualized by John chapter 10 at all. Okay. The closest thing that we have that might try and take the sheep is the stranger's voice or the thief. Okay. So if there is a sheep that might wander off, well, there's stranger danger. There's a stranger that's trying to lead that sheep astray. The problem with that though, folks, is that we've dealt with absolutes in John's gospel. So in verses four and five, we have absolutes. His sheep go before him, the sheep follow him and they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow but will flee from him. They know not the voice of strangers. There's no ifs here. This is an absolute statement. Jesus's sheep, his sheep, the ones that belong to him, they just simply don't follow a stranger's voice. It's as simple as that. And so while we're on the topic of absolutes here, it's important to point out that in some parts of the country where I live in Britain, there may be some areas of the country where sheep are not always fenced in particular. They have a bit more freedom to roam. And so different farmers may be neighbors to each other and their sheep get mixed up. So what they sometimes do is, and it's not necessarily unanimous practice, but they will dab their sheep with a bit of spray paint somewhere or some sort of indication so that they identify which sheep belong to them and which sheep belongs to their neighbor.  Now, Epiucione tried to frame it where this shepherd is just walking in his own direction and the sheep have to follow him. And if they wander off, that's their fault. That's their problem. But that's not actually how shepherding works in the real world because in the real world, sheep have value. It's cost money to raise the sheep. The shepherd's gonna want to get some value for that sheep. So it's in his interest to keep the sheep. So you may have seen that the shepherd would have a crook. Now a days, shepherds would probably have sheep dogs. They might have not had sheep dogs, perhaps in the time of the Bible because the Jews would have considered them unclean but they may have had hired servants. So yes, the shepherd would typically lead from the front, but because sheep, being sheep, do sort of wander off in slight directions, that's why what they need to do is keep around the sheep and create kind of a virtual fence, if you like, to ensure that the flock stays together, okay? And today, that's where sheep dogs would come in. They're like a virtual fence. The goal is to keep all of the sheep following the shepherd. You don't just let them wander off, okay? Sheep are property. They actually have value. You have to keep the flock together. That's the goal. You don't just walk forwards and hope that some of them will make it, okay? Now then, what if a sheep does wander off and doesn't listen to the voice of the shepherd? Well, we dealt with absolutes. John 10 has absolute statements. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. It's as simple as that. They follow me, I know them. There's no ifs or buts about that. That is an absolute statement. So using these markings as the example to help illustrate this, the sheep that wanders off while it didn't listen to the voice of the shepherd, well, then according to John 10, it must not be a sheep. And with what we've just seen about shepherding, about keeping the flock together, if that sheep belonged to the shepherd, the shepherd would have gone across and would have brought it back, but the shepherd didn't do that. Now, why would the shepherd just let the sheep wander off like that? Well, it's quite simple. It's not his sheep. That sheep shouldn't have been in the pasture in the first place. It must belong to somebody else. Now, obviously in a real scenario, you know, if he's a good neighbor, he'd try and restore it to his neighbor, but that's obviously completely irrelevant to this parable. So this idea that you can just walk away from salvation and then lose it is just not true because that's not how sheep ownership works. That's not how John chapter 10 portrays it. Epiucion has just invented his own type of sheep to get away from this inescapable biblical truth. If somebody wanders off, okay, if they wander away from the faith and they just completely apostise, it's further evidence they were never the sheep of the shepherd to begin with because they simply did not hear his voice. And so how do we hear the shepherd's voice? How do we follow his voice? What did the shepherd say? Well, the shepherd said, whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Epiucion says whosoever repents of his sins should not perish but have everlasting life. That's the voice of a stranger. The voice of the shepherd said, I am the door by me if any man entering, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture. The voice of a stranger, Epiucion apologetic says that salvation is a difficult path and if you don't enjoy to the bitter end you will lose your salvation. Well, sorry, but that's not what the shepherd said. The shepherd said, I am the good shepherd. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me, no ifs, no buts. And I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish and neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. The voice of a stranger says, you can wander away if you don't follow his voice and then the wolf will devour you. Well, that's not how shepherding actually works. That's just simply the voice of a stranger speaking against what the voice of the good shepherd said. The good shepherd says that the hyling sees the wolf coming, okay? The wolf is coming towards the sheep. That's what the shepherd said. Epiucion apologetics, the voice of a stranger said that the wolf is out there somewhere waiting to devour any sheep that wander from the main flock. Well, again, the shepherd never mentioned that in John chapter 10. So you can see very clearly the voice of a shepherd versus the voice of a stranger. So now you know what it means to follow him for eternal life. Now, another thing to pick up on what he said. He said that, well, if Christ says no man shall pluck you from out of his hand, that only refers to other men. It doesn't mean that you can't choose to walk away because you can't snatch yourself. That was the explanation he was trying to use. But really all this is, it's man-made carnal logic to go against what Jesus plainly said. But in any case, let's just entertain it. If somebody does depart from faith, well, the thing is, folks, something or someone lured that person away. Maybe it was sin. Maybe they listened to some false teaching by some false person. So if they lost their salvation and chose to walk away, they were still plucked from out of his hand because something plucked them away. Okay, something lured them into that. So again, that's just carnal man-made logic that just to try and dance around what Jesus said. So let's wrap up the issue of sheep then because people will then bring up, Luke 15, the issue of the lost sheep that the shepherd goes out for his sheep. So he makes the argument that a sheep, the one sheep that's left the hundred, it's someone who's lost. And so because they're lost by definition, they're unsaved. And so he then qualifies this with Luke 15.7 that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner, which he refers to as a sheep who repents, turns back to Jesus. So he's framing this issue as the lost sheep as the sinner that needs to come back to Jesus. But again, this completely butchers how the Bible actually frames it if you go to source. So the way that Epiucion frames the lost sheep out of the hundred is that because it says one sinner that repents, there's more joy in heaven, he interprets this to mean that you need to return to the shepherd to get your salvation back. And once again, it just shows how he completely butchers what the Bible's actually saying and what Jesus actually says when he says these things because this has got nothing to do with the issue being discussed, okay? Jesus is not giving this parable, this example to people that were one saved and lost their salvation. Okay, that's just not what's happening here. So it's introduced in verse one that people drew near to Jesus and they were publicans and sinners and they went to hear him, they went to listen to what he has to say. And the prescribes and Pharisees murmured at this saying that this man received sinners and ease with them. And so this is about what Jesus gave his parable, okay? Now he says, what man of you having a hundred sheep if he loses one of them, does not leave the 99 in the wilderness and go after that which is lost until he find it, okay? And then when he found it, he lays on his shoulders rejoicing and when he comes home, he calls together his friends and family saying, rejoice with me for I have found my sheep which was lost, okay? So this is not talking about, this is not really relevant to believers losing their salvation because it's not really the manner in which Jesus is using this parable. He's using this parable to explain why he's preaching to the publicans and sinners and the Pharisees and scribes and murmuring about this. Okay, that's what he's dealing with. Now, bear in mind, he's pointing to the scribes and Pharisees who we know are wicked. And he says, even you, these wicked scribes and Pharisees, even they would go out for the lost sheep to find that sheep. But here's the premise of it though.   Well, we saw that in John 10, Jesus is the good shepherd. So if even you, if even the scribes and Pharisees would go out for a lost sheep, Jesus would definitely go out for it. And so here's the problem with saying that, well, you need to turn around and go back to Jesus to get your salvation back. You need to return to following him. Well, that's completely against what this parable says because the whole premise of this parable is that you go out for the lost sheep.  So it just shows how he's completely buttering this. So it's not that the sheep come back to Jesus, Jesus goes out for the lost sheep, okay? And here, what it means is Jesus is reaching out to the sinners that would be saved. Because when we're dealing with John chapter 10, Jesus was speaking to Jews and they would not believe him. Okay? They just, they would not accept his teaching. They saw his works and they still rejected him. Whereas the publicans and sinners would accept him. So when it says one sinner that repents, again, it does not say turns from all of his sins that he shall be saved. What does a sinner need to do to repent? How does a sinner accept Jesus? Well, we already saw this when we dealt with Epeucian's false understanding of repentance. It's Matthew 21 that Jesus said, the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom before you for they believed him, but you won't repent that you might believe him. So the Pharisees and scribes reject Jesus, the publicans and sinners accept Jesus. And so that's why he's going out preaching to the publicans and sinners to reach the lost, to reach those who would be saved. So I know it's a bit strange that he uses this parable about leaving the 99, but he's using the parable to explain the point as to why he's reaching out to sinners. And these are people on the outside. They're not people who were in the flock and then left the flock and need to turn around and come back again. That's not what's being discussed here. It's the people on the outside who need to be invited in. It's the people that are yet to enter into the sheepfold. That's who he's going for. And even if it was that he could lose salvation in theory and you could wander away from the hundred sheep, while it quite clearly says that you would go out after that which is lost, well, the shepherd would. So again, this is not about sheep making a U-turn and walking back to the correct shepherd. The shepherd goes out for the sheep, perfectly consistent with John chapter 10. So everything that he said in this video is basically completely false. He completely butchers what the Bible actually says and how the Bible actually frames it. So I'm just gonna show you another video where he more or less does the same thing. And then what we'll probably do is go to John chapter six to really solidify this issue of one saved, always saved and deal with falling away and what actually happens when somebody falls away. And then we can just look at other stuff where we just constantly gets it wrong. So very much like the previous video, this is another one that I want to look at and he's titled this beautiful explanation of John 524 refuting Osas. And this is probably the most common verse that he's confronted with. So it's truly truly I say unto you here that here's my word and believes on him who sent me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death to life. I'm reading the King James across, but so that's the verse that he's gonna tackle.  I'm not gonna play all of that. I'll just summarize what he says towards the end of it for you. But then I'm gonna play some of this bit where he gives a visual illustration. And once again, pretty much the same with the sheep and the shepherd demonstration. His illustration doesn't match how the Bible actually frames it. It's completely convoluted and actually makes no sense. His illustration contradicts itself. It makes no sense. So have a look at these clips and then we'll summarize at the end. I would say by far the number one verse that I get sent to me for people who support one saved always saved is John 524. In fact, I get it so much that I felt that I needed to do this video to explain this verse. Okay, so for those of you who are visual like me, I've got three different items here that represent three different things. First one, this is eternal life, okay? It says, the Bible says that God possesses eternal life. So this is God the Father dash eternal life, okay? Then we have Jesus, the Word of God. The Bible represents Jesus in this illustration and this represents the believer, okay? So now Jesus says that I and the Father are one. I'm in the Father and the Father's in me. The Father possesses eternal life, okay?  So he puts eternal life in his son Jesus. Now, where's the eternal life found? Eternal life is found in Jesus. See, we get the whole package.    The entire package of himself is placed in the believer at faith, at belief. Jesus puts himself, which where's the eternal life now? Well, I mean, you could say that, yes, the eternal life is in the believer. Yes, I mean, that wouldn't be wrong. You would not be incorrect whatsoever to say that. But more specifically, where is it? More specifically, it's still found in Jesus. See, right here, Jesus comes to live inside you. Now, yes, you have eternal life, but you have something way more beautiful than that.  It's always gonna be eternal.  The question is, the question isn't that it becomes temporary life or anything like that. The question now becomes, is it possible to grieve the Holy Spirit? Is it possible to quench the Holy Spirit? Is it possible to walk away from God? Because you see, when he puts his spirit inside you, acts as if the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey him. Okay? So, yes, faith is the first. We get and dwell with the Holy Spirit, but then we're expected to obey him. He guides us. When he puts his Holy Spirit inside of us, we are then expected to be guided by him. So he tells us which way to turn. He tells us go this way, go that way, turn left, turn right, stop, speed up. He's directing us. He should be directing us. He calls the shots. He's the Lord of our lives now. Now we can choose to walk away from Jesus. And then look at this. What happens? Where's the eternal life? Well, guess what? It's still in Jesus. That doesn't change. The eternal life is in Jesus, or Jesus is eternal life. So the question is more, can you walk away from Jesus? If he's in you and guiding you, he says to follow me. Okay? So if he says to turn right, and there's a cliff up ahead and you keep going, he says, listen, I'm going, this is where I'm going, follow me. Okay? I'm going right. Follow me. And you have that choice. You have that choice to be led by him and take that path to avoid going off the cliff. On the other hand, you can also choose not to follow him. You have that free will. But guess what? If Jesus is going over here, and you're going this way, see, now you're walking in the flesh. This is why Paul says, do not walk in the flesh because that leads to death. But for those who are led by the spirit, those are the sons of God. So I'll just briefly summarize the argument that he framed from the Bible to then justify the illustration that he went on to you. So he quotes verses like, for example, Romans 6, 23, where it says, the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. And then he goes on to provide other verses like John 14, six where Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. Let's have a look through here. And then he has authority over all flesh to give eternal life to all who I have given him. So the way that he's trying to frame the argument, again, this is more of it in me, in him, is that eternal life is something that sits inside of Christ. It's in Christ, but then Christ has to be in you for you to have that eternal life. But then if Christ is going one direction and you walk another direction, you've left Christ. And so you've left that eternal life that's in him. That's the premise of how he's trying to frame this argument. And then further on, he goes to quote John 14, 15, 17, where it refers to the Holy Spirit dwelling in the disciples. That's what Jesus was talking about with his disciples there.  And then he goes on to say, the Spirit dwells in you and will be in you. So then he goes on to explain in his video that it's not just that eternal life piece of paper that he has sits inside of you and Christ is on the outside, but that Christ is self actually is in you. Which is obviously that is a biblical concept that the Bible says Christ in you. But the thing is, when he says it's really beautiful, he makes it sound like it's something so profound that hardly anybody knows this. So the thing is, we know from the Bible that Christ dwells in believers, that's demonstratable. And really it sounds amazingly profound, but really people are gonna want you to clarify what that actually means. Because what does it mean Jesus is sitting inside of me like this? Does that mean, well, it's the Holy Spirit in you? Or is it just eternal life itself? Or what does that mean? And so he's trying to make it out like it's this beautiful amazing explanation. But for me it was kind of, it ended on a cliffhanger. Okay, I wanted some clarities to what the difference is between eternal life in you and actually Christ himself in you. Like, what is the difference supposed to be? Because he's trying to frame it as if, well, if eternal life sits inside Christ, but then you walk away from Christ and Christ is no longer in you, you've lost eternal life because that sits inside of him. But Christ did say, I give onto them eternal life. He didn't say, I give them myself and as long as they hold onto me, they will have that eternal life in me. That's not how Christ actually framed it. And so Christ giving himself, well, yes, you can include the Holy Spirit in that. But giving you eternal life is what Christ gives you. That's what it means for him to give you. The reason it's in him is because there is no salvation in any other name. Okay, so he's trying to make it sound more weird or somehow profound than it actually is. It's great that Christ dwells in us, obviously. I'm not trying to downplay or anything, but it's just, it's the way that he's trying to use it to then frame his argument. Now there is something to pick up at 15 minutes 24 in. He says that the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey him. And by obey him, he means do the commandments because he quoted John 14, 15 to 17 where Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments. Then he goes on to say, I will pray to the Father and he shall give you the comforter. And that's obviously referring to Holy Spirit. Now the problem is folks is that because he's reading from the English shoddy version there, the way that that's translated in English, it says, if you love me, you will keep my commandments. Whereas the King James just says, if you love me, keep my commandments. So the King James makes it look like an instruction. Well, do you love me? Yes, no, well, if yes, do my commandments. Whereas the English standard version is, it's definitive is, well, if you love me, you clearly will do my commandments. There's no question about it. So I'll show you why that difference in translation is because the underlying word is it's future active. So because it's in the future sense that tense, it's hard to convey that in English.   And so the point that he's saying is, if you love me, after I'm departed, keep my commandments, keep this thing going essentially. So it's clearly an instruction, but he doesn't strictly say that the Holy Spirit will be given to those who do his commandments. Okay. And actually that the proof text for who the Holy Spirit is given to is in John chapter seven, 38 to 39. It says, he that believes on me as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, but this spake he of the spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. So it's given to those that believe on him, not those who obey his commandments. Okay. It's just that as far as the disciples are concerned, well Jesus is going to give them the Holy Spirit, but then he also tells them, well if you love me and you are my disciples, so you ought to love me, keep my commandments. Okay. And he tells his disciples to shepherd the sheep of the flock and so on and so forth. So part of the problem is that he has a Bible that puts works back into the gospel, but there you go. So let's break down his explanation of this school bus demonstration. So at 15 minutes and 46 in, he goes on to say that Jesus is telling you which way to turn. So he says, go this way, go that way. Left, turn, right, stop, et cetera. So he's directing us. So he's framing this illustration as if Jesus is actually the driver of this vehicle. Jesus is in the driver's seat. Okay. But then just a few seconds later, he goes on to say that now we can choose, we can choose to walk away from Jesus and then look what happens and now he's not in the bus anymore. This doesn't make any sense. Just stop and think about this for a minute. You won't need to be a driver to understand this. If you've never got your driver's license, you can still understand this.  Well, that vehicle cannot go in a different direction than the man who sat in it. Whatever the man inside does, whatever the driver is doing, if he turns the steering wheel left or he turns the steering wheel right or he presses his brakes or he presses his accelerator, that vehicle is gonna do exactly what the driver is telling it to do. It can't do any different. So this explanation dismantles itself already. Moreover, folks, I actually take the bus to go to church. So he framed Christ as if he's inside a bus and he's trying to get the bus to go one way but the bus goes a different way. Well, I get on the bus, folks. And when I'm inside the bus, you see, when I go to church, the bus has to turn a corner so I can get off at the bus stop. But when I go to church, I actually need to be going along that road up there. Well, I like the ability to just exit the bus mid-flow and go in my direction. I have to wait for the bus to turn a corner, get off at the bus stop and emphasize the fact that I have to walk off the bus out of the front door. Okay, I'm not a ghost. I don't just sort of vanish through the frame and carry on going in my direction. I have to willingly get off that vehicle, okay? So you can't frame it as, well, you can choose to walk away from him because according to your illustration, whoever's driving that vehicle A controls where it goes and B, if he had to leave it and if he wanted to go in a different direction, he'd have to stop and he'd have to walk off. The vehicle doesn't leave him, he leaves his vehicle. So again, just like with the sheep, he's invented this ridiculous explanation that goes completely against how the Bible actually frames how this works, okay? Well, we've already seen how this works, folks. It's my sheep here and know my voice and that's talking in absolutes. It's not, if they obey my voice, then they will be my sheep.  That's how the Bible frames it. Jesus himself said, I am the good shepherd and a shepherd goes out for his lost sheep. It's not while the sheep's wandered off and that sheep needs to do an about turn, otherwise they will be lost and know the shepherd goes out for that sheep. And the shepherd said, no man shall ever pluck them out of my hand. That's how Jesus framed it. But they always want to come back with this. Well, will you free will you can choose to walk away? Well, who would choose to walk away from eternal life for a start? We'll cover that when we get to John chapter six. You know, I want a chapter and verse on that. I want a verse that says free will, lose and salvation, or I will accept eternal life in place of salvation in the same verse, in the same sentence. I'm yet to find one folks, post one if you find one. The sheep's free will are limited to that provided by the shepherd because that's how shepherding actually works. He gives them a feel to walking but they can't just wander off and go wherever they like. Okay, that's not how owning sheep works. And if they do happen to wander, they get lost. Well, the good shepherd goes out for his sheep and will not let anybody pluck them out of his hand. So you either trust Jesus to fulfill what he said he was gonna fulfill or you don't. Now, something that maybe will help you with this is just understand the burden of responsibilities. Now, what is your responsibility?  He did say, if you love me, keep my commandments and sin no more. He did say, abide in me. He did say, hold fast your faith until the end. But what is Christ's responsibility? Well, it's Christ's responsibility to give eternal life to those that believe. You don't maintain it by your obedience. He gives it, okay? It's Christ's responsibility to lose none that the Father gives him, okay? And again, we'll look at that in John chapter six momentarily. It's Christ's responsibility to go out for his lost sheep. It's Christ's responsibility to not let anybody pluck them out of his hand, okay? That's the stuff that he said he's going to do, okay? So let's have a look at John chapter six. Now, I have already done a video on my channel about the gospel of John chapter six, particularly in relation to salvation. So that's about two hours, 23 minutes long. And the first half of the video deals with one saved, always saved versus conditional security. The second half deals with the issue about the bread of life and communion, which Epiucion touches on, but doesn't give a definitive view on what his position is. So I'm not going to address the bread of life in this video. We'll just address Osasitel security. So you can find that there. If you want a more detailed explanation, I'm only going to really summarize in this video. But John chapter six is a really good chapter to illustrate this point because normally a lot of people probably default to John chapter 10 as their proof about him not letting anybody plucked from out of his hand. But as we've seen from Epiucion, people will try and wiggle the way out of that and come up with their own man-made carnal logic to try and get around that. And I think although John chapter six is perhaps less detailed about this specific point, it does have something in it, which I'll be sure I think is very inescapable because although it doesn't have the beautiful illustration that John chapter 10 gives us about the shepherd and the sheep, it does give us information about the transaction that actually takes place when somebody gets saved. And also it later in the chapter, it deals with the issue of believers walking away but the disciples that left Jesus. And so when someone wants to confront me about verses like falling from grace or making shitwreck their faith or whatever they might say about losing your salvation, well, all of those verses that you would confront me with, they can be answered through this chapter because this chapter holds the key to understanding all of that. Okay, so I'll summarize it and then we'll do it in a diagram. And I just think it's inescapable. I think it's a lot harder to wiggle your way out of this than it is to wiggle your way out of chapter 10. So it's not necessary to go to the beginning of chapter six. We can start from verse 24, but to give you a bit of background earlier in the chapter there was the story of the five loaves and the two fish. So the people from that story, they found him, they've come back to him. And then Jesus answered them in verse 26, you seek me not because you saw the miracles but because you did eat the loaves and were filled. So at first they were making it more about their physical hunger, just trying to get fed. That seems to be what it looks like here. But then Jesus goes on to make it a conversation about life everlasting. So in verse 27, do not labor for the meat which perishes but for that meat which endures onto everlasting life. Okay, so this is clearly this chapter is gonna be dealing with eternal everlasting life. That is the context of this chapter. Okay, so you can't say that he's talking about something else. You can't just pick another passage that has nothing to do with eternal life specifically against what this passage is. This passage is about eternal life. Okay, it's the key subject matter. Now just as a side note here in regards to faith alone or faith plus works, there's a very interesting thing that comes out here in verse 28 because this group actually asked Jesus, what shall we do that we might work the works of God? Now, Jesus told them to labor and Epiucion and people like that would take that as to mean, well, there is some kind of work involved for salvation. It must be faith plus works, but he doesn't say labor for everlasting life. That's not what he said. He said labor for the meat which endures onto everlasting life. That's what he says. So I've explained this in my John chapter six video, but if you're gonna do any laboring at all, you can't work for salvation, but if you don't know whether you save, well then you ought to be working to try and find out how to be saved, finding out what the different viewpoints are, finding out what the Bible says, finding out what the gospel is. So he's telling them to seek that out which is for everlasting life, okay? And so they're asking, well, what shall we do that we might do the works? Works in relation to what? Well, sorry, I think there's a motorcycle. Well, it's works in relation to everlasting life because that's what we're talking about here. So we're not talking about doing the works as a Christian or doing the works just as part of a church or whatever it might be. It's doing the works of God for everlasting life. Well, Jesus answered. He said, this is the work and that there's that little word there, work of God that you believe on him whom he has sent. And so why is this important? Well, I PUCM will take versus like, if you love me, keep my commandments and make that about everlasting life and what you have to do for salvation. Thing is though, folks, he's not really talking about everlasting life in the passage where he says that, okay? Here we are talking about everlasting life. This is a group of people that haven't even believed on him yet as far as we know. And they're asking, well, what do we, how do we do this work? Will you believe on him? That's how you do the work, quote unquote, for everlasting life. And really he's just trying to answer that point of work because we know obviously from elsewhere in the Bible that his faith without works. And then further down in the chapter, this is where it gets super interesting and this is where the heart of the matter really sets in. So Jesus starts talking about the bread of life, but again, I'm not gonna deal with that as I said. And then he goes on to say in verse 37, all that the Father gives me shall come to me and him that comes to me watch what Jesus says here and not just what he says, but how he phrases it versus how else he could have said this verse, okay? He says, I will in no wise cast out. So anyone who comes to Jesus and we understand that eternal life is the subject matter here, okay? That's what he keeps talking about. Jesus will in no wise, which is an archaic way of saying under no circumstances, will he cast them out? Well, to be cast out, you have to be in, okay? Otherwise that doesn't really make a lot of sense. So the conditional security crowd will say that, well, Jesus will let you in, but you can walk out though, because you can choose to walk away from your salvation under their framework. Well, if that were the case, then Jesus has used a very poor choice of words here because he said under no circumstances, will I ever cast them out or boot them out, get rid of them, okay? Well, if conditional security is true, Jesus could have phrased this slightly differently so that nobody would be confused by what he means here, okay? Because look what he doesn't say. He does not say, I will in no wise deny entry. I will in no wise reject them. Now, the NLT does say reject them, but the NLT, they're not living translation, as I call it. It might as well just have a big front cover that says, we believe in work salvation and you've got to work your way to heaven. They might, they've just completely corrupted the word of God by putting rejects because all the literal translations are going with cast out. And Jesus also doesn't say, I will in no wise turn them away. So if a conditional security advocate would look at 37 there and argue that that just means when you come to Jesus, he'll let you in and he won't turn you away. But once you're in, you can then walk away.  He worded it as, I will in no wise cast them out, eject them, throw them out of whatever, okay? That's what it actually says. That's the wording that Jesus chose to use, okay?  Now immediately, if some conditional security person was listening to me right now, they'd be like, well, hang on a minute there. Don't play this trick with us because walking away from Jesus is not the same as being cast out.   Well, that's gonna be destroyed by verse 39, but we'll revisit verse 39 momentarily because there's something about the transaction that takes place when a person that gets saved will help this make more sense, but we just need to go ahead a few verses and then come back to this for this to make sense. If you go down just a bit further to verse 44, okay? Verse 44 really sets this in because what's going on here is what you might call a transaction, okay? A transaction takes place. So verse 44 says, no man can come to me and obviously we're talking about eternal life because that's the context of this chapter right now. This is what Jesus is talking about and he's using all the right language as well. He says, no man can come to me so we can take that as being synonymous with believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, okay? Except the father which has sent me draw him. So the father's got to draw him and if the father draws him, what happens? Look at the words that Jesus uses. Well, he says, I will raise him up at the last day. Now that's a crucial ending to that verse because that's also how verses 39 and 40 end which is going to tile that together. So we've got that from verse 44. Somebody comes to Jesus, somebody believes on the Lord. Well, the father must have drawn him. That must have happened in order for it to work because except the father drawn him, no man can come to him. So that must have happened somehow. Now I'm not going to get into an argument about choice and predestination, all that stuff. That's not relevant right now. What's relevant is that transaction takes place and if that transaction takes place, Jesus will raise that person up at the last day. That's what's going to happen. So now let's wind back to verses 39 and 40, okay? So then let's wind back to 39 and it says, this is the father's will which has sent me that all of which the father has given me. So we might say that that's synonymous with drawing. The father has to draw someone to come to Jesus. So the father is therefore, because the father's done that, the father is giving that person to Jesus. So when somebody believes and they get saved, the father has drawn him, the father gives him to Jesus. So that's all part of that transaction that we talked about. That has to take place, okay? Then watch what Jesus says about those that are given to him by the father for everlasting life. He says, I should and watch these two words here. Lose nothing. So there it is, folks. Those that come to Jesus, the father has drawn them, the father has given them to Jesus and Jesus will lose nothing, okay? Absolutely nothing. And again, eternal life is the context. And then watch how this verse ends. It ends the same way that verse 44 ended. I should raise it up again at the last day. So again, this is all what happens. You get saved. Jesus will raise you up at the last day. We're dealing with once again, the verses that we go to for faith alone and OSAS, we are dealing with absolutes. It's not they might not. Well, it could not. Or he will raise them up at the last day. It's going to happen because Jesus will absolutely not lose anything. And this all jives perfectly with what we've been looking at in John chapter 10, okay? Now then, just in case you're getting a bit confused with all the language that Jesus is using about the father drawing and the father giving and all those that come to me, what does all that mean, Jesus? Well, he just makes it perfectly simple in verse 40 where he uses non-complicated language. This is the will of him that sent this. This is the father's will that everyone which sees the son and believes on him may have everlasting life. And if that happens, if they believe on him, I will raise him up at the last day. So you believe on Christ while the father's drawing you in giving you to Jesus and Jesus will lose absolutely nothing. So then when someone wants to take, I will in no wise cast out and say, well, that just means Jesus won't throw you away but you can still walk away. Well, if you can walk away, you have to accuse Jesus of either lying or failing when he says, I will lose nothing. Okay, now someone will try and trick you with, well, Jesus won't lose you but you can still walk away because of your free will. Yeah, that translates as him losing you because he said he would raise you up at the last day but if you've walked away, he's not going to raise you up at the last day when he said he would. So he has lost you. That's how that works.  Well, you have to put posters up everywhere. Well, guess what? You can't say that the dog just wandered off on its own accord.  That's how that works. Okay, so that's, there's no argument out of that. You cannot use free will and walking away to get out of that. And let me ask you a hypothetical question. I'm going to use some man-made logic here. Okay, which obviously is not as solid but let me just put this forth to you.  They want to go to heaven. They want eternal life, but they don't want to give up absolutely all of their sins. They haven't walked away in the conventional sense because they still believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and they still want to be saved, but they're having a problem where they're not letting go of their sin for some reason. Well, the PUCM would say, well, they obviously don't want eternal life because if they wanted it, they would repent of all their sins. But the thing is though in verse 40, Jesus didn't say whosoever believeth on him and repenteth of his sins. The phrase repent of your sins, the beatum never appears once in the Bible. Okay, it just says believe on him. That's the prerequisite here and Christ will raise him up at the last day. So what if he wants to be raised up at the last day but he's still got some sin in his life? Well, according to the verses in this chapter that use that phrase raise up at the last day, turning from your sins is not a requirement of it. It's not a pre-given condition. So no, they haven't walked away in the conventional sense.  That's the only way around that because they can't stay, if their sins can lose their salvation, well, they're not walking away in the sense they still want Jesus. They still want this eternal life package, but Jesus can't allow sin into heaven while then he's got to push them out, okay? So if you imagine the sheep analogy with the shepherd, well, if there's a really naughty sheep that's causing a lot of problems, the shepherd has to have it put down. Well, the sheep can still stay in the field with all the other sheep, but the shepherd's gonna have to deal with it. Well, Jesus will not cast them out. So this is just completely inescapable. You cannot get out of this at all. They'll try so hard to just weasel the way out of it, but all it is is they wanna take this phrase where Jesus says I will in no wise cast them out and I will lose nothing.  It's one of those two. Either you think Jesus lied or he failed, you take your pick. Now, just while we're here before we move on, there's something very brief to address is where it says about the will of God in verses 39 to 40, because Epu, Sion and all of his ilk, they always love to take Matthew 721 where it says, not everyone who says unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my father, which is in heaven. They love to take that verse. They will say, you've got to be doing the will of God, you've got to be doing all the work for obeying his commandments, blah, blah, blah. Well, the problem is that if you actually read Matthew 7, it's the sermon on the mount and Jesus doesn't actually define in that chapter what the will of God actually is. He says you've got to do the will of God for salvation, but he doesn't tell you what that involves. He doesn't tell you how to do the will of God. He just says that you have to do it. Well, John's gospel here is giving us the will of God for everlasting life. So according to verse 40, how do you do the will of God to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Well, it's simple. You believe on him and you have everlasting life. That's what it says. That's the will of God for salvation. Now, somewhere on his channel, I can't remember what the video was, but Epi Eusion tried to explain this away, as he always does, by referencing other verses in the New Testament that talk about doing the will of God and there is some actual work or something that you've actually got to do. So there are various examples of that, but the thing is, is if you actually go and find out all of those verses, actually look at the reason why that is the will of God and guess what everlasting life is not the reason why that's the will of God. So for example, somewhere in one of the books of Thessalonians, it talks about this is the will of God that you abstain from fornication. Well, why? Why is that the will of God? It's for your sanctification. Or you might think of 1 Peter chapter two where it says so this is the will of God that in well-doing, well, what in well-doing that you might have everlasting life? Oh wait, that's not what it says. It's that in well-doing, you might put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. So yes, there are other things that are the will of God that you must do, but not for everlasting life though, okay? Those are the will of God for some other reason not related to salvation. This right here, John chapter six, this is the will of God for everlasting life, that to do the works of God, you believe on him. So again, perfectly simple, and that's why we believe faith alone. We don't just take the words believe on him and see, well, there you go, full stop case closed. No, there's more to it than that folks because we actually read the chapter in its context.  And so further down in John chapter six then, and this is just another reason why John chapter six really just nails the doctrine of eternal security because we've seen the inescapable verses from earlier in the chapter. Well, later in the chapter, we actually see examples of people who you might say fell away. And so not only does John chapter six solidify one saved always saved, it even answers all of your objections to one saved always saved. So have a look what happens. So many therefore it is disciples. And when it says disciples, obviously it doesn't mean the 12, it means Jesus had other disciples outside of the 12. So, and it's not even, these are not even ordinary believers. They're not just believers, disciples. Okay, people who are following him. So the stakes are higher here folks. And they're saying who can hear it? They stumbled at his teaching. Okay, does this offend you? Jesus knew that his disciples mermaid at is as in verse 61. Well, then look what happened. Jesus talks some more with them and then look what happened in verse 66. From that time, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Now that's obviously a literal statement. They walk no more with him. Jesus, it's not been metaphorical or allegorical there. When it, you know, in some salvation context per se, but they walk no more with him. And so you could see these as Jesus' own disciples abandoning him, leaving him and walking no more with him. So we see from the context that they're not accepting Jesus' teaching. They're stumbling at his teaching. And that's why they walk no more with him. So you might put these in the category of people who lost their salvation, quote, one quote, under the conditional security model. Well, what does Jesus have to say about these people? Well, have a look what he says. So in verse 63, it's the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak, they are live. So the key of life is in Jesus' words there. Okay. And but watch this in verse 64. There are some of you that believe not. Why don't they believe? Well, they did believe and they stopped believing and they lost their salvation. Wrong. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not and who should betray him. Jesus already knew all the way from the beginning who did not believe him and who should betray him. He knew that these people were gonna do this. So it's meaningless to say that they were temporarily saved until they lost it again because the fact that Jesus knows from the beginning cancels that out. It cancels that period of time out. You can't say, well, you were saved yesterday and if you would have died on your deathbed yesterday you would have been saved but you've lost your salvation today. So if you're dying in your deathbed today you're not gonna get saved.   So why are these people walking away from him if Jesus will lose nothing? Because Jesus already knew from the beginning that they believed not and it's not that, well, they did believe and then they stopped believing because they apostised. No, Jesus knew from the beginning they believed past tense not. They just didn't believe. Whatever belief they had was a fake belief. It was a vain belief, okay? That's why they didn't get saved. Now look at the difference between someone who actually is saved and look at how they respond to Jesus' words unlike these betrayers. Well, over in 68, Simon Peter answered him, well, sorry, verse 67, Jesus said, will you also go away? And Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hath the words of eternal life. I love the answer from Peter. That is probably one of the best answers in the whole Bible to any question. Where would we go, Lord? You have the words of eternal life. So all these imbeciles like, Epius, the unapologetic, well, you have free will, you can choose to walk away. Why would I choose that? Why would a born again believer with the Holy Spirit living inside of him ever choose to walk away? Jesus has the words of eternal life. There is nowhere else to go, okay? So why do I stick around? Well, because there's nowhere else to go.  So why would I leave Jesus and go to Buddha?    Jesus has the words of eternal life and it's whosoever believeth in him. That's the words of what he said and his words have eternal life. There is nowhere else to go. And just in case you think maybe Peter wasn't saved or he wasn't quite sure, well, just look at what he says in verse 69. We believe and are sure that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. You see, that's what a saved person looks like. That's what a person filled with the Spirit of God looks like, okay? That's the difference between somebody who's saved and I mean that in the absolute literally sense of the word versus somebody who's not saved. People that walk away, they don't think that Jesus has the words of eternal life because otherwise where would they go? They know that there's nowhere else to go otherwise.  It's bizarre, whatever happened to the new creature that's a new creation in Christ with the new mind that has the mind of Christ. Yes, I want to walk away from salvation. It's the free will argument, the walking away argument. It's the stupidest argument ever, okay? And so naturally they're gonna then try and gravitate to what about this verse? What about that verse? What about this, that and the other and all these warnings in the New Testament about losing salvation. And of course they don't have a verse that says lose everlasting life. It'll be something like they've fallen from grace or if someone was enlightened and tasted and they fell away, it's impossible to renew them again or you have made shipwreck your faith or this, that and the other. Well, all of those verses that they would ever turn to as their proof texts, they can all be answered through the lens of verse 64 right here. Well, what about those who fell from grace? Well, Jesus knew from the beginning who believed no. Well, what about those who were enlightened and partook of the Holy Ghost and then they fell away? Well, Jesus knew from the beginning who believed no. Well, what about the parable of the soul when there's the type of seed that fell on the ground and there those that believed for a while and then some authentic came and they fell away? Well, yeah, they believed for a while but Jesus knew from the beginning who believed no. So they still fall under the category of believe no, okay? And just in case verse 64 isn't clear enough for you, John 3.18 shows this same point that he that believes on him is not condemned but he that believes not is condemned already because he has not up to now believed. So those that believed for a while as the parable says they still come under the category of has not believed. They believe not. He said, well, why would then Jesus use that parable? Well, the thing is there is such thing in the Bible as believing in vain like it says in 1 Corinthians 15, people have a vain belief. So that believer that you thought was saved and then they went off and did some grievous sin or went into some heresy and stopped believing or whatever it might be and you thought they lost their salvation. No, they didn't lose salvation. They were never saved because Jesus knew from the beginning that they did not believe and whatever belief they had, they believed in vain, okay? This is not complicated, folks. And so all of his objection verses about losing salvation, they're all answered. They're all answered in this simple verse right here. This is not complicated at all, folks, to answer all of their objections now. So for those of you that are visual and maybe would like to see this explained in a chart, well, here is time this purple line. And let's imagine that above the line is saved onto eternal life and below the line is unsaved damnation. So this man supposedly at least get saved and he appears to be walking in the faith and you can interpret that however you like. If you have a workspace salvation and you wanna make that all about he's obeying his commandments, fine, whatever. And then some point in his life happens, he falls away. So he's one of the people that a conditional secure retard would say that he lost his salvation, okay? So what are the verses that they would turn to to say that this man lost his salvation, okay? Well, they'd say about this man, he was once enlightened. He once tasted the heavenly gift. He once partook of the Holy Ghost. Then he fell away as per Hebrew six. They would say that he's the seed on the stony ground that those that believe for a while and then in time of temptation fall away as per Luke chapter eight. Perhaps James when he says, if any of you do err from the truth he's one of those who heard from the truth. You might say he's one of those who fell from grace as per Galatians five. Or when Jesus said in John 15, if a man not abide, not in me. He has cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gathered them and cast them into the fire and they are burned. So he's one of those. He was, he did not abide in Christ. He was cast forth as a branch.  You might invoke Peter and say for if we have, sorry, if they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord, I will say for Jesus Christ, they are again entangled there in an overcome and the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. So we could say this about this guy. It's worse for him than it was in the beginning. You might say having damnation because they cast off their first faith. Well, that's exactly what he did. He cast off his first faith. He's just become a God hating, rejecting, reprobate at this point. So these are all the verses that they're gonna turn to and say, well, he did believe for a while but he lost his salvation. Well, what does Jesus have to say about it? Well, Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not. He that believes not is condemned because he has not believed. Well, how can we say he has not believed when the seed on the stony ground believed for a while? Well, it's quite simple. Let's get a bit of help from one Corinthians 15. If you keep in memory what I preached on to you unless you have believed in vain. Well, what is vain? Well, vain is in this context, it's pointless. It's a pointless belief. If that man would have believed with a saving faith that father would have given him to Jesus and Jesus would lose nothing and Jesus would hold onto him and Jesus would go out for the lost. Well, why didn't Jesus do it for the man in this diagram? Well, it's simple. He believed in vain. He was not a legitimate believer. He never got saved. His faith did not work to the saving of the soul because if he would have believed Jesus, Jesus would fulfill what he said he would fulfill because Jesus didn't fulfill any of that. Well, he doesn't owe this man anything because he was never Jesus to begin with. Perfectly simple when you can see it from Jesus' heavenly perspective. And so it pains me to have to explain something so basic that people just cannot grasp this and it's so simple. If you can just understand that Jesus foreknows everything, this all makes perfect sense. There's nothing complicated about this at all. So if we just take a timeline, a man was dead in sin, then he claimed to believe the gospel and then he did grievous sin and then he just, now he just outright rejects the truth and he'll never return to the faith again. It's just completely apostatized. Well, he didn't lose his salvation here, folks because he never got saved here. It was a vain belief because Jesus already knew that from the beginning that he would end up here. Jesus did not fulfill his obligations to lose nothing that the father gave him because this man, whoever this is, this man did not meet the criteria for Jesus to fulfill his obligations.  So somewhere along like this man failed somehow, okay?  So he was saved then, but then he lost it. That's meaningless because Jesus already knew this man's life. Jesus has already foreseen this. So if they want to argue, well, Jesus covers you for your past sins, but you know, you might sin tomorrow and lose yourself. Well, Jesus already knows if I'm gonna sin tomorrow or not. It's ridiculous their logic and they just prove that they cannot understand spiritual things because they wanna throw out this argument, me free will, me free will, what about the free will, what about your choice? Well, you know, Peter had free will and he said, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life because Peter understood there is nowhere else to go. What choice would he make? You know what? I know what Jesus is like, but I'm just gonna choose to walk away and, you know, where would we go? Jesus has the words of eternal life and Peter grasped that. He didn't get everything right all the time. He made mistakes, you know, denying Jesus three times, but he understood that, though, okay? So this idea that somebody would grasp eternal life and just choose to forfeit it is just completely contrary to the very nature of being born again, being a new creature in Christ with the mind of Christ. So that the free will argument to just try and prove conditional security by free will, which is not even a Bible verse anyway on that. All they just do is they just prove that they don't have a renewed mind because they cannot understand heavenly concepts such as this. But it wasn't even a difficult concept. Okay, it's just, it's difficult for the carnal mind. And so their carnal logic is just a reflection of their carnal mind and their dead in sin nature. And the thing is, even if with the free will argument being granted, let's just grant them that concession. Does that change the fact that Jesus knew from the beginning who believes not? Because we go with the words of Jesus. We don't go with the carnal logic of some work salvation full like Epi Euseon apologetics. So let's get back to the passage then. I'm gonna focus on this guy, because this is not Epi Euseon apologetics. This is why city preachers, but he does hang around with Epi Euseon apologetics. They've gone into the streets screaming repent of your sins at people. So they're in fellowship with one another. Okay, they're two peas in a pod. So I'm exposing him here, but indirectly that's exposing Epi Euseon as well because they're basically buddies. So he's gonna go to the same chapter that we've been looking at. So we've been looking at John chapter six. And we saw that Jesus said, I should lose nothing. And so he's then gonna explain this away by explaining how Jesus will lose some. Okay, now for the sake of time, I'm not gonna play all this. I'm just gonna jump to certain time frames and we'll look at the transcripts on the right and we'll just summarize what he said in this video. But you know what the video is, you can go there and see the evidence for yourself if you want the full evidence. So about three minutes in, he focuses on the parts of the passage where it says I should. Okay, Jesus says I should not I will lose nothing. So let's just have a look at this a little bit closer. So what people like him try to do is they try and focus on the woods and the shuds and the cudd's and they make it as if it might not happen.  The problem with this is that that would only carry weight if Jesus constantly spoke like that all the time, okay? But you know that there are parts of John's gospel where Jesus said something like this, like for example, as he says in verse 40 he that believes on him may have everlasting life. So well, he might not have everlasting life but the problem with interpreting the Bible that way is that you then have to completely ignore the bits where Jesus did use absolutes. Like he said earlier in this very chapter, he says in verse 35 he who comes to me shall never hunger. He that believes on me shall never thirst. So again, we're dealing with absolutes there and then two verses later he says I will in no wise cast out. So there's your wills, there's your shalls. Those are the deafness. And even though he said I should raise it up at the last day there in verse 39 he then did go on to say in verse 40 I will raise him up at the last day. And so he that believes on him I will raise him up at the last day. That's an absolute statement. So in this video he's honing in on the bit about the may have everlasting life and that it's conditional but the condition is that you believe on him. Well, yeah, we agree that the condition is that you believe on him but then he's gonna set up a paradigm where somebody can believe on him to the point of being saved and then stop believing on him and then stop being saved. Well, we've already answered that folks. The people in this chapter that Jesus speaking to there's some of his own disciples with him that then walk away and Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not. Jesus already knew they believe not. So the prospect of somebody believing and then stop believing is already answered in John chapter six, the same chapter that we're dealing with answers your objections to one saved always saved and easy believers and from this chapter. But when he then goes on to explain this he's gonna have to go to a different chapter in John to explain it because he couldn't explain it properly from this chapter. Let's have a look what he says later on. So he then goes to John chapter 17 between verses six to 12 and this is where Jesus is praying for his disciples. And it goes on to explain that of those that the father that you've given me none of them is lost except the son of perdition that the scripture might be fulfilled. And so he's using that then is his argument that Judas Iscariot was saved at one time. That's what it says in the transcript script there. He had faith apparently at one time but then there's a point where Judas lost his salvation. So Jesus had him the father gave into Jesus but then Jesus lost him essentially is what his argument plays out here. So just to focus in on it this is the verse in question John 17 12. Jesus is praying to the father while I was with them in the world I kept them in thy name those that thou had gave us me I have kept and none of them is lost but the son of perdition that the scripture might be fulfilled. So there's that bit there essentially that they'll say, well, none of them is lost but the son of perdition. And so what he's essentially arguing is that Jesus lost Judas somehow. Okay. Now the problem with a verse like this folks is that it's rather ambiguous because Jesus isn't praying for the disciples eternal life in this chapter. So when it says he lost Judas that's not necessarily losing him in so far as his eternal life is concerned. Now, although why city preachers didn't use this I have seen Acts chapter 125 be used to show that Judas lost his eternal life and this is one of their proof texts because it says that by transgression he fell but he doesn't say that he fell from eternal life or that he fell from salvation he says he fell from his ministry and apostleship that's what he fell from. Okay. So just because Judas was lost doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus lost him as far as his eternal life is concerned. And so this is something it's very specific in John 17 to the disciples. He's not praying for all believers here. Okay. So this is not about how he won't lose believers. It's specifically about the disciples. So he lost Judas as a disciple but that was specifically for the reason given that the scripture might be fulfilled. It's not to prove that you can lose salvation. It's because the scripture already prophesied that somebody would betray Jesus and so that's why Jesus had Judas among him. But we'll just park that for a moment. So even though we've got, so just have a look at this. So it says you, those that you have given me I have kept and there's a comma there. Okay. And then it says, and none of them is lost and we've got another comma but the son of perdition. Okay. So we've got two commas in the texts but be very careful with ambiguous verses like this because where you put a mental comma as I would call it in your head when you're reading this could actually change the meaning of this sentence. Okay. So just have a look at this for a second. So if I focused on the first comma, okay. So I would read it as, well those that you gave me I have kept and then you would separate the sentence and say, well, none of them is lost but the son of perdition so that you would merge those two things together. Well, that makes it look like Jesus didn't lose the other 11 but he did lose the son of perdition. If you read it that way and you focus on the comma there. Okay. But look what happens when you put your mental comma in the other one instead. So we can read this as though those that you have given me I have kept and continuing this same thought by the way, none of them is lost. And then we've got a comma. Okay. And then separately, we've got the next bit of the sentence but the son of perdition. Well, reading it that way then looks as if actually Jesus didn't lose any of the disciples. It's just that the son of perdition was lost. Okay. So it's not that Jesus lost him. He was already lost. And so you asked me, well, hang on a minute. Aren't you playing kind of word games there? Aren't you trying to manipulate me there? Well, is an idea. Rather than going all the way to John chapter 17 because we couldn't explain John chapter six properly. Let's go back to John chapter six and let John chapter six explain itself. And while we're at it we'll also answer this verse for you right here. So let's just go back to John six, have a look at this. Bearing in mind, we've already looked at verse 64 in John. Okay. We saw that Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believe not and watch this who should betray him. Okay. Jesus knew from the beginning. This really isn't complicated folks. Well, have a look then at what goes onto this chapter. So we've already read this bit but look how this chapter ends because there's extra verse at the chapter that we haven't got to yet. Jesus answered them, have not I chosen you 12 and one of you is a devil. Okay. It's not you will be a devil.  I have chosen you 12 and one of you is a devil. Okay. Now what has he chosen for? He's chosen them specifically as his closest disciples. All right. It's not choosing them for eternal life because there's plenty of other people and it's those that the Father gives him. Jesus doesn't personally choose the Father gives them. That's how John chapter six has framed those that believe eternal life. Now he's speaking specifically to his disciples.  He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon for he it was that should betray him being one of the 12. So the narrator is explaining that Judas Iscariot is the one that should betray him. What we just saw. Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him. Jesus already knows this about Judas but Captain Moron here said that Judas about seven minutes in he says that Judas was one saved. Judas once had the faith but Jesus already knew that Judas would betray him. Jesus already knew that he was false. So it's absolutely meaningless to say that well I would have given him eternal life. I just took it back from him because he kind of betrayed me. Jesus already knew that he was going to betray him. It's meaningless to say that Judas was temporarily saved. It's an utterly meaningless statement. And so Jesus said I should lose nothing. Well, Judas was already lost because Jesus already knew that he was lost. This isn't complicated folks. And John chapter six answers all of this but he has to go to some vague verse standalone verse in John chapter 17 that's not even dealing with eternal life specifically because he can't answer John chapter six properly. And so this is the logical progression of this guy's argument. Well, Jesus said he should lose nothing and say he will lose nothing but we clearly see that Judas was lost. So we better maintain our own salvation because we can't really trust Jesus not to lose us. We better take it from here. I mean, folks, this is blasphemous, basically what he's saying. He's saying that we can't trust Jesus to lose nothing. Now, just for the sake, just so I haven't left any stone unturned. Why did Jesus use the words should lose nothing? Couldn't he have just said I will lose nothing? Someone, just in case somebody out there wants to wonder about that, I'll deal with that for you right now, okay? Ask this about yourself. Should you obey Jesus's commandments? Should you obey the laws of God? Well, the obvious answer is yes, you should. But have you done these things though, folks? Because the Bible says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is not a just man upon the earth who does good in sins now. So yes, you should do these things. But guess what? You haven't always done those things, okay? Now ask this about Jesus. Should Jesus have gone to the cross? Should Jesus have died for our sins? Well, again, the obvious answer is yes. But here's the difference between you and Jesus. Jesus successfully did those things that he fulfilled he said he was gonna do. He did those things. He fulfilled what he was sent out to do, right? You didn't. So in conclusion then, you should obey the commandments of Jesus, but you've already proven that you failed. Jesus should lose nothing that the Father gives him, but he's already proven that he will succeed.  And that guy makes Jesus a failure. And so, you know, folks, we started off with Dumb and Dumber and now we're onto the Three Stooges. It just gets more and more embarrassing the more we deal with their false doctrine.   This is Hal Chaffee and he did a video about Ravi Zacharias and all the stuff that came out with that, with all the sexual abuse scandals and stuff. And the danger of one saved always saved.  Well, here's an article about some of the witnesses that spoke against Ravi Zacharias. And here's one woman reporting that he warned her not to even speak out against him or she would be responsible for millions of souls salvation would be lost if his reputation was damaged. So if that's true and Ravi really said that to this woman, well that means he believed that he could lose his salvation. So that's why he was unsaved because he believed that. So one saved always saved is not the danger here folks because the guy he's exposing believed in conditional security. And just as a little side cookie for you, I'll give you this one for free. Here's a video where Ravi Zacharias actually explains the gospel. Have a guess how many times he actually mentioned the death barrel in Resurrection of Christ.  It's all this fluffy stuff about repairing our relationship and all these words that Jesus never actually uses. There's nothing about believing on him for eternal life. It's just all fluffy surface philosophical stuff. This guy was not saved. So no, Osas isn't the danger. False prophets are the danger. And it just so happens that false prophets believe in conditional security. Take it or leave it. So now that I've got my complete collection, I can release my new Bollywood film called The Four Idiots. You can find it out somewhere. I'm sure it's gonna be a kicker. So there you go. So now that we've got one saved always saved out of the way and I do intend to deal with some of the more difficult passages that they bring up like John 15. But before I get on to some of the more difficult stuff like that, I want to tackle faith alone next. And I think once we've tackled faith alone, then we've dealt with one saved always saved. We've dealt with faith alone. Then we can cover some of the difficult passages that he might throw, which seems to undermine a lot of Osas and faith alone at first sight. So I was kind of wondering how's best to start this. I wasn't quite sure. So I'm just going to pick something and I'll just work me away from there. So I'm going to start with this idea about salvation being a path and not just a one time event. Because when you read it in John's gospel, particularly in the first few chapters, it seems pretty instantaneous. Like Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, you drink the water that I give you and you'll never thirst again. You eat the bread that I give you will never hunger again. He uses a lot of instantaneous language and whosoever believes that on me is passed from death on to life, that kind of thing. So John's gospel makes it look very instantaneous. He's going to argue it's a path based on Matthew chapter seven. Okay. I'm not going to play all of this just because my video up to now has gone on for so long and I just want to get through stuff. So I'm going to talk you through the timeline of what he's saying basically. This is a well-known scripture that he's going to use. So it's Matthew chapter seven and between verses 13 to 14, Jesus says enter you in at the straight gate for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there be which go in there at because straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leads on to life and few there be that find it. Now just as a side comment because he reads the English shoddy version his Bible doesn't actually say narrow is the way it says hard is the way that leads to life and the new King James by the way also says difficult is the way to life. So it's not that the way is narrow. It's that it's difficult. Now part of the reason why that is as far as I understand it and as I've said before on this channel I don't speak Greeks. This is all just based on secondary information. Let's see if I can find it here. It's based on this word here in the Greek. So it can mean narrow but more in terms of like pressure like kind of a squeezing in or constricting in some way. So it's kind of complicated to translate it to English because to us difficult and narrow were obviously not the same thing but you can understand if something's constricting or pressing against you, you can see why it would be narrow in a sense. And so we'll talk in a minute about which is the correct translation when it comes into English. So he's trying to give this illustration of the narrow path and he's obviously is in the woods is on a very small narrow path there. If you're not in this immediate area it probably wouldn't be very easy to see that narrow path. And he comes up with all the same talking points that we've heard before that this is a difficult path that we have free will, we have a choice we can either choose to walk this narrow path or we can choose to walk the wide gate to destruction essentially. And so about a minute and 24 in he then tries to illustrate that the narrow path contrasted with the broad path that leads to destruction. So he's on the narrow path here and just after this he's gonna pan the camera so that he's looking more towards the that's the wide straight path. That's obviously the easy path as he would call it. It's obviously a lot more straightforward there. And then so he's carrying on the narrow path as we can see in the video timeline but then there is also the wide path as well. Okay, so this is kind of the illustration that he's trying to give here. And once again, as I've already pointed out with some of his previous illustrations his illustrations don't work with how the Bible actually frames it or just common sense if you actually try and think it through. So think about this is that he's on the narrow path and you've got to be careful to choose this path and not by your free will walk off this path and go down that path because that path leads to destruction and that's the narrow path that leads to life. And yet again folks, this is why his illustrations don't work because so far at least from this particular camera angle that he's showing these paths the wide path and the narrow path look as if they're parallel they're going in the same direction which means if you can just hop between them you're still going to the same place. So if it's all about free will and we need to be careful to go on the narrow path well you could just follow the easy path right up until the point where you realize it goes in a different direction and then just walk up here and then go the narrow path for the rest of it that doesn't work, that doesn't make any sense because just as you could choose by your free will to stray from this path and go on that path well you can do the opposite. So because he's always trying to frame it as if faith alone and one saved always saved he's giving people like a license to sin of course he's sinning without a license but well the thing is this does the same thing you could just walk down this path do all of the sins and do what you want and then as soon as you see that this path is divergent from that path we'll just hop across and then go on the narrow path just like that and then you haven't even had to walk the difficult walk that he says we've got to walk but then later in his video at one minute 55 the narrow path and the straight and the big wide path meet up together so the destination is still the same this doesn't work with how these verses are actually framing it so let me show you how the verses are actually framing it okay so let's have a look at the verses again so we've got broad is the way the road if you like that leads to destruction so that's where the broad road is going okay that's the direction that's the place that that broad road is gonna take you and then it says narrow is the way or difficult as his Bible would tell him that leads on to life so that leads on to life they're not parallel they don't meet up together again they're going in two different directions one's going to destruction one's going to life two different directions okay and so here it is in illustration folks the wide path going to destruction and the narrow path going to life okay and few there be that find it so here's the thing he's trying to make it out as if at any time you can just buy your free will jump ship between the narrow path and the wide path now his illustration didn't work because both of these paths go to the same place and they run parallel but that's not what the Bible said the Bible said one goes to destruction one goes to life and really you can argue these complete opposite directions really or they've got to be two different directions for this explanation that Jesus is giving to walk okay so this hopping between the two doesn't work so you've got a choice either we go this way we take the narrow path or we take the wide path now naturally if this was a literal scenario man's natural implication is to go down the wide path it's looks like a normal road that you would want to walk down not many people would take the narrow path now there's the odd adventure and the hiker that wants to take the more challenging path obviously but most people will take the wide path and I like to go walking from time to time not far from where I live just an hour's bus ride away there's some really beautiful areas that you can go for walks on and there's a particular place where there's a wide path like this and it used to be a rail line but the rail was stripped out and it was turned into just a really wide pedestrian and cycling path so a lot of people like to go down there cycling, walking and it's not busy like a city path but it's busy and that there's more than enough people on that path you're gonna cross quite a lot of people if you take that road and now elsewhere there's these narrow little path that go down farmlands and go between hedges now there is the odd time when you do bump into somebody on those paths but they're not very busy there's not a lot of people choosing that path most people even when they're going out for a day in the country still like to use the wide path with the tarmac and you know it's nice and straight and it's a lot easier to cycle and it's a lot easier to take the kids for a walk or for a bike ride so that's what most people choose that's their natural inclination to take the wide path not many people would choose this path okay but let's just say that you're someone who's taken this path so in biblical terms you've believed on the Lord Jesus Christ you've entered the path to life okay well then you start walking down this path okay and so you're walking you're walking you're walking well eventually you're going to get to a point where it's actually easier to go to life than it is to change your mind and go all the way over here because these paths lead in different directions and even to turn back and go the wide path is longer and more strenuous than just completing the journey okay so if you were to argue that the narrow path is difficult well you could get killed by a bear along the way or something like that well there's still a point where you've actually gone so far in it's more difficult to change your mind and turn around and go the other way than it is to complete what you started so the illustration that you just hop between the two doesn't work if you actually understand how taking roads and paths in different directions actually works his illustration simply doesn't work so then is the problem that the narrow path is too difficult and most people are going to turn around and go that way or cross over and do that or is it just that it's narrow and there aren't going to be many people that choose this path well first of all the illustration ought to tell that for you anyway need I say any more but let's have a look at what the Bible actually said so in order to figure this out folks guess what you don't need to understand the complexities of the Greek language to figure this out you don't need to know Greek to understand which Bible is translating this right even in English the context of the verse proves that the King James translation is correct to say narrow it's narrow it's not difficult okay and here's why look at the words that Jesus said he did not say few there be that walk down it few there be that make it to the end few there be that fight through the thorns and the fistles few there be that won't turn back the other way few there be that won't leave the road and take the easier path or few there be that won't be killed by a wolf on the way Jesus didn't say anything like that what did Jesus say in verse 14 he said few there be that find it so just as not many people would choose to take the narrow path not many people are going to find it so the problem isn't that it's so difficult that everybody just keeps turning around and losing their salvation and walking away because they just can't hack this difficult path few few can find this path because once you've found the path to life I don't really know how to complete that sentence for you folks you've found it case closed that's the end of it that's as far as Jesus takes this illustration so no salvation is not difficult finding the path to life is the difficult bit once you've found it you've found it case closed so his illustration doesn't work it goes completely against how Jesus actually frames this and so this is just the embarrassment of those who believe in faith plus works for salvation this is the crap that they come up with they can't understand the words of Jesus and he's not even being profound or complicated in what he's saying so folks with all that said and done what this shows is that if he can't even understand this simple two verse analogy that Jesus uses about two different roads he can't even grasp that simple concept how do you think it's gonna work out when he tries to use all these complicated passages like John chapter 15 and James chapter two and so on because he acts like he's so smart with those passages like he's got us and he's destroyed faith alone and we know we can't answer these kind of things he can't even answer something so basic he can't even understand a basic analogy but then he wants to act like it's a gotcha with all of these difficult passages in the Bible it only just carries on getting worse from here folks than it's already gonna get so the next thing is let's deal with the works issue okay I'll get onto James chapter two a little bit later but for right now let's deal with this faith and works issue and what he actually believes about works for salvation so the next thing to deal with then is the distinction between what he calls the works of the