 Now then, seamless perfectionists and lordshipers for that matter might take what I've been saying in this study and say that you're trying to justify your sin or you're trying to make people comfortable in their sin, right? But the problem with statements like this is that it's really just sensationalism and if you follow what John has been saying to its logical conclusion, it's really, I would argue that it's they themselves that are trying to justify their sin and feel comfortable in their sin. And I say this because as somebody who's under grace, I can actually confess, which, you know, admit my sins and although I should not have done those sins, but I have, I can acknowledge it, right? I can say that I was wrong and do not, you know, to do those things and God is faithful to forgive me and to cleanse me, right? Whereas those who are stuck under the law, especially seamless perfectionists, they ultimately cannot admit their sins after they've claimed to repent of their sins because if they did confess those sins, they would have to admit that they might have lost their salvation and that they were not free from sin, right? You know, their interpretation of what that means. So their entire satirological framework comes crashing down because the gospel that they profess cannot even say themselves. And this is why, you know, John says they deceive themselves. I'm going to give you some examples to help, you know, qualify this. So example number one. So if you're very familiar with my channel content, you will know that I have done quite a bit of work to refute a guy who's now called a bide in the word, but he used to be called a puse on apologetics. And I made several surgeons about him, but these were a few. So on multiple occasions, I've said that he has knowingly and willfully misappropriated a Bible passage to be about salvation when that's not even necessarily the subject matter, like when Paul says run the race, for example, right? And I have said that he has deliberately made false claims about what a passage actually says with willful intent. So like when Revelation 20 says the dead are judged, right? And he says, oh, it means Christians are judged, things like that. He also claimed he did a whole video with another guy where they referenced Irenaeus as book against heresies, and they exposed one saved always saved as being a Gnostic or Marcianite heresy based on that book. But the thing is, they didn't really provide any meaningful quotes from the book to prove what he was saying. And they just quote some random passage where like Irenaeus was denouncing Marcian and they say, oh, see, that was because he preached, but it's like just a certain conclusions really. Now I refute, I did a video refuting it, but unlike them, I actually provided quotes from the book on the screen, OK, showing you all the quotes and all the things that Irenaeus was actually saying against the Gnostic and basically demonstrating that his claims were fundamentally untrue. That's what I was asserting. Now, here's the problem with people like him. He will never admit to any of this. OK, he can't admit it, even if you just wanted to say, yeah, I was wrong about that passage, but it was an accident. He can't even do it by accident, right? Because if he admitted that he had done it deliberately, right, then all of his regular viewers that turned from sins crowd that boast in their works, they would all realize that he's a liar and a fraud because he comes out and says, repent and he hasn't turned from his own sins, right? So, you know, his own gospel damns himself and he prides himself on destroying a lot of the faith alone and OSAS arguments. And so even admitting that he did it accidentally is really going to look rather embarrassing for him to say the least. OK, so now, at least at the time of me doing this study video right now, I'm not aware that he has ever publicly responded to any of these accusations. OK, so I don't know as much as whether even knows what I've even said about him, but they do get an email, you know, when you text somebody on a video. But anyway, I'm not aware that he's ever responded to it up to this time, right? So he's never admitted any of this or even just tried to defend himself against my claims. So because he's never publicly responded nor has he ever messaged me privately about this either, I can't exactly say how he would reply to these allegations. So would he do one of the following? Would he try and turn it back on me that I'm being a false accuser because other people have tried to confront him about stuff. But then what a lot of false prophets do is they try and spin it on the person who's attacking them and make it about them. Could he actually defend the things that I attacked him for? Could he open the Bible where, you know, I said it, he was lying and prove that he was actually telling the truth from those passages, you know, without digressing to a load of all the random quote-mined passages, which is what a lot of them do. You confront them about a passage, they just run off to some other passage. Could he open the book of Irenaeus, an expert, examine my counterclaims and defend himself or would he just come up with a bunch of excuses as to why he did not sin? And so with people like this, they usually find that by ignoring such accusations and any prodding questions is really the safest way to deal with them. It's the safest way to ignore everything I've ever said and not respond. That's the safe option, right? So now I, too, have made false claims on my channel, believe it or not, and I was wrong to do so, OK? But the difference between me and a sinless perfectionist, him, is that I can confess it, right? And guess what? God is faithful and just to forgive me. So, for example, I'll give you an example. I did a long study video about repentance and I attacked an article on Ray Comfort's website because I was basically complaining that the Bible verses are not in the body of the article, they're like in a little pop-up that you have to hover your mouse and show the pop-up. But then there was a particular time where I was even moaning about it verbally complaining that it doesn't include the verse in the article. And it was right there on the screen as I was moaning about it, right? It was just because I'm just hearing, you know, I'm talking faster than I can think and I just missed it because I'm concentrating on what I have to say. So by mistake, I falsely accused the writer of the article of hiding that verse when he did. Now, I was wrong. I made a mistake, OK? Now, I can confess my sins, as per 1 John 1 9. So I can't admit this and I can say it was a mistake. So in the comments, I publicly pinned a comment saying, look, I did this by mistake, OK? And I can do this, right? Because the free gift of grace allows me to. I'm not trying to obey my way to heaven as a sinless perfectionist. So I don't have to deny or pretend that I didn't do this wrongly, OK? It was a mistake and I was wrong to do it, but I still did it, OK? Not, not even willfully, but I did it. That's just the simple fact of the matter. Now, let's example number two then. So somebody, this guy's called Progerfroger and he's a regular, he regularly listens to, abide in the words of material and comments on it. And if he was a sinless perfectionist in that circuit and he's also seen my content against abide in the word, right? And he's commented on stuff. And interestingly, I actually featured this commentator on one of my videos where he, you know, says we have to be justified by what he's called himself. He does nothing for the kingdom of God. So he saw my video accusing abide of the word in the word of making false claims about Irenaeus' book and likening Osas to Gnosticism. Now, he didn't respond to any of the accusations being put forth. He didn't try to defend him. He didn't even prove that I was wrong. He didn't even say anything about the fact that a supposed to turn from his sins preachers just willfully lied out of his mouth, right? He dismissed the entire argument by invoking it as a fallacy, even though the video never even set out to prove that Osas is true. It was just disproving, well, that section at least. It was disproving that it's Gnostic doctrine. That's what it was disproving. It's proving that a sinless perfectionist has lied through his front teeth. OK, he just dismisses it as a fallacy. He has nothing to say about the accusations. He's not interested in what's true. OK, he's not interested in the facts. He's got to find ways to dismiss it because that's all he can do, right? Now, in another video I made, I was browsing through the channels of people who follow Abide in the Word, including Prografroga, and I highlighted a comment where he called faith alone a false doctrine for deceived Christians, right? Now, when I looked on his YouTube channel, even at the time of this study video that I'm recording right now, he has done naff all for the kingdom of God. He could not be bothered to do one video to preach the gospel on his channel. He can't be bothered. He's lazy, right? If you've got time to sit there commenting all day and you want to say that we have to turn from our sins and do these works, you've got time to do some content for YouTube. It's as simple as that. No excuses, right? And then I also found a playlist, a playlist of just worldly music. Now, some of it's Christian world. This is the world music, like, you know, that music and like rock, all kinds of stuff. And like one of that, including the Beatles, right? He just edited it like two days before I recorded the footage for that video. So I think he's since either he's deleted it or he's hidden it from public view because I couldn't find it anymore. But, you know, basically the Beatles. I mean, John Lennon said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. OK, and they featured like a segment of Alistair Crowley's head. And, you know, Alistair Crowley was a sativist, if you don't already know, on one of the album covers. And it's actually suggested that Alistair Crowley heavily influenced the work of the Beatles and they have made his writings, OK, a satanist, right? And this turned from his sins, live a new life, deny yourself, pick up your cross guy is listening to their music, right, you know, being in the world. They're all talk, right? So he does not by his own standards, he does nothing. He doesn't turn from his own sins. So I featured in that video. Let's see how he responded. What was his response? Well, he just made a joke of the whole thing and suggested that I learn the lyrics featured in something like I've got I'm the one who needs correcting or something. You know, he just I'm so wanted to buy the attention. He just made a complete joke out of it. He had nothing to say about the accusations being put forth. And he thinks that his good works are getting people to respond to comments about like you posting comments in YouTube is not work. OK, if you sit there in front of all that is not work. That's not what the word word means. It doesn't end there, though. OK. You know, I managed to find a comment in another post that he's put on somebody else's channel and saw something very interesting that he said to somebody else. Adam of Epics is abiding the word now does not sin. Keith of YCity Preachers does not sin. I do not sin. We might sin in the future, but we have no intention of ever doing it again, and we will only be saved by repenting from whatever sin could be for us. The unrighteous and sinners will not inherit the kingdom of the scriptures. So, you know, basically he says he doesn't sin and he says that abiding the word doesn't sin. When I've publicly exposed you for doing nothing and even lying about the Bible, it's unbelievable. Right. So in summary, just to summarise why this person calls faithful only deceptive heresy yet does no work on his YouTube channel whatsoever. OK, look, comments in comments, maybe it's a bit of word. It's not real work, though. If you've got time to do that all day, you've got time to make your own content. He made your works in the real world for Ireland. Maybe he does scream at people in the streets, but you think if he's got time to post comments on YouTube, you'd have time to make his own content? Just saying. He hearkens to preachers who claim they are without sin and preach living a holy life away from the things of this world and crucifying the flesh, yet he listens to worldly music that was possibly even influenced by a Satanist. OK. He sees evidence presented to him right in front of his face that the people he follows are liars and frauds who lie about what Irenaeus said. OK. And all I say, oh, it's just a fallacy. He just dismisses it with a fallacy fallacy. OK. And yet on top of all of that, he still claims that he's without sin. OK. His gospel requires him to be, quote, free from sin. End quote. Yet even says, we might sin in future. That's what he said. So, you know, if that happens, then we must repent or die some right. So, like, what if the tables were turned? Right. What if Proger Frogger found some dirt on me or had something against me to criticize about? Well, funnily enough, that actually did happen. I'll show you on the next slide. Right. In one of my videos, ripping on a bide in the word, he declined to comment on anything that I actually said in the video again. But joined in a conversation I was having with somebody else that had nothing to do with him about Old Testament saints. And it was the whole thing about whether they go, you know, went to heaven or went to Abraham's bosom in like the nice half of Hades. I'm not going to get into that now. Now, he accused me of misquoting the Bible, literally by one word, OK, because I said that Lazarus was carried up to Abraham's bosom. When actually the Bible says he was carried into, right? So, I misquoted the Bible. By one word, I misquoted the Bible, but I misquoted the Bible, right? Luke 16, you know, it says that he was carried into. So, I just, I acknowledge that and I apologize. You know, I said I have to apologize for using the word up and explain why he accidentally conflated carrying into the went up, OK? I made a mistake. I confessed. Yes, I accidentally misquoted the Bible there. But you know what? Because I confess it, God is faithful and just to get it, it was an accident, OK? I can confess my faults, he can't, right? And the thing is, he wants to like criticize me for literally misquoting the Bible by one little word, right? Abiding the word, constantly misquotes and misappropriates the Bible all the time. I've exposed him for doing it. But you see, Proger Frogger won't challenge him on that. He won't tell, hey, you're misquoting the Bible. He'll do it to me. He won't do it to the sinless perfectionist, right? He'll challenge me on one minor word, but he's always got, he's just got excuses and excuses and excuses for his own sins and the sins of the people that he fellowships with. You know, if we say that, if we confess that. Now, there are other examples I can give. Obviously, they're all anecdote. So, you know, I think we get the point. It's very easily easy to see how sinless perfectionists deceive themselves. And this really is the very, very deception that John is talking about. He's trying to highlight this in the first chapter of his pistol. People like Proger Frogger and a bride in the word, they will say about themselves, we have no sin and he has no sin and I have no sin. And they will fellowship with one another because of this affirmation, right? Their online fellowship is based around this thing that they think they don't sin, right? Well, I will not fellowship with them because I say they have sin and they will not fellowship with me because I confess that I have sin, right? They have no fundamental proof that either one of them doesn't sin. They don't even see each other every hour of every day. They can't read each other's minds. They have no fundamental proof that their day-to-day life is any more obedient than mine is really, you know? Proger Frogger assumes that a bride in the word does not sin because he has a YouTube channel where he constantly tells everybody to turn from their sins for salvation, right? And a bride in the word assumes that Proger Frogger does not sin because he's a supporting subscriber. That's it. They would both assume that I sin purely on account of preaching faithful, but none of these affirmations prove anything, okay? Anybody can get up and do a video on YouTube saying, hey, you have to turn from your sins, you have to obey it. It doesn't mean they're doing it, okay? And just because somebody follows them and gives them a yes and amen, it doesn't mean that person's doing it, okay? It's as simple as that. These affirmations prove nothing at all about anybody, right? Now, I can confront them seven ways until Sunday about their sins. They will deny it. They will not hear it. They will refuse to address it. They say they have no sin. They deceive themselves, right? And it's really, it's the same with any other sinless perfectionists that I mentioned earlier, like Mike Rakowski. And I don't know if you've ever heard of that guy, but like even after a million years burning in hell, he wouldn't confess his sins because he fancies himself. He claims that he's a sanctified truth disciple of Christ who will overcome sickness and sin and has learned to test the spirits. And you can't confront him about his sins because you're not a sanctified and truth disciple. And you can still sin and get sick and he can't apparently. So, yeah, I mean, if you wanna know what, and if you've never heard of him before and you want to know when I am looks like that guy is an I am, okay? Way more than abiding the word, by the way. So the thing is, you know, I cannot admit my sins. I have an advocate, right? God is faithful and just to forgive me of my sins because I just admitted. Yeah, I was wrong, sorry. Yeah, true, true. Thank God Jesus died for my sins, right?