 So the sheep first of all notice that the sheep in this parable are one Dimensional okay, they they belong to the shepherd they follow his voice The opposite of this would be the sheep that don't fit in this category But the prospect of a sheep switching between these two is not really offered by this parable So Jesus the door by me if any man shall enter in he shall be saved and go in and find pasture Okay, so according to the parable the sheep follow the shepherd's voice They flee from the voice of the stranger. So Jesus says this this is his voice and that's the voice that the sheep listen to Okay, the opposite of that. So someone who was not Jesus's sheep is The one who follows a stranger's voice and does not follow the voice of the shepherd now What's not offered by this parable is a sheep that belongs to the shepherd But then suddenly stops following his voice and is disowned and it you know is discarded that type of sheep Is not offered by the parable and so some of the arguments that are conditional security We can lose our salvation Advocate would throw it. Yeah, they'd have to kind of invent this type of sheet when it's not really offered by the passage So we must understand that there's really only two types of sheep here They either belong to Christ or they don't know that will help explain a lot of what's coming up later And so conditional security and that's to argue that we can lose our salvation What what you essentially have to do with this chapter is Create a third type of cheap at sheep that is never conceptualized at all It doesn't even fit in with the framework that Jesus describes and essentially what you're doing is you're inventing a sheep That belongs to Christ and is of his fold But wanders away and loses the protection of the shepherd. Well, if they were of Christ's sheep They were saved then why didn't they hear the voice of the shepherd and follow it? Okay, if they didn't hear his voice and follow him then they weren't his sheep Why didn't Christ lay down his life for this sheet? Why didn't Jesus protect the sheep from wandering away? Jesus said he is the good shepherd. He knows his sheep He takes responsibility to protect them when he sees the wolf coming So they have to invent this third type of sheep that just doesn't exist in this chapter at all And if it's so important, there's all these warnings that we can lose our salvation and this is such a key danger Why doesn't Jesus even mention such a concept? Okay, this type of sheep is not conceptualized in this chapter It's that simple. Okay So Jesus was very clear my sheep hear my voice I know them and they follow me and a stranger will they not follow that simple Okay, I don't really get any more complicated than that if they follow another voice then the only logical conclusion is that they are Not of his sheep. Okay, so Jesus said whosoever believes in me may have a lasting life and I should lose nothing Well, my sheep hear my voice. That's the voice that they follow Any sheep that are listening to these other voices like you need to repent of your sins to be saved And if you don't turn from your sins, you don't get born again Or you need to fully surrender your life to Christ to be saved, you know Or Jesus will never leave you but you can walk away from it Well, fully enough, we can't quote the shepherd is ever saying any of these things So if the sheep is listening to any of these three voices, well, it's quite simple You are not my sheep because you believe me not because they won't believe Christ when he said this They're following somebody else's voice. These people they're not quoting the Bible when they say these kind of things They're just quoting their own version of the gospel. So this is the sheep that listen to different voices. Okay Now one of the most common arguments that I've heard conditional security advocates throw is that a man Again another spelling error, but a man has free will so he can choose to walk away Okay, that they constantly bang on about this free will argument all the time The problem is this is this is a logical argument There is no direct diverse that can be quoted to prove this So you have to reason your way to that you can't prove that outright Now we can understand the problem with the free will argument more clearly if we understand the relationship Between the shepherd and the sheep, okay So let's explore that theme and then we'll see why this free will argument just comes crashing down. Okay so typically Sheep graze in a field and usually they do have some degree of free will okay, you know, they can Wander up and down here. They can go left over here. They can walk up there. You know, they've got a big field to graze in They can you know move about as much as they like So they have they have got some degree of free will it's fair to say. Okay, but normally sheep are Fenced in okay, they're typically kept in the confines that the shepherd has placed on them They're not they're not supposed to be able to just leave. Okay, so yes, they do have free will to an extent But only within the confines that the shepherd places on them So they have free will within this space. They don't have free will outside of this space Okay, and what does the Bible said they enter in they find pasture. This is their pasture. Okay So also just sort of a note worthy kind of a side note if you like sheep are Flocking animals by nature. Okay, they would not normally Choose to wander off on their own like a goat or a lion or something like that That's not really a sheep's nature sheep get very distressed typically if they're not with a flock They're flocking animals. They stay in herds and crowds. Okay In the UK parts of the UK where I live hill farming is more widely practiced And so this is where you keep sheep on more difficult terrain, which isn't really good for very much else and Sometimes they're not actually fenced in so that you know, they can climb up here go over there They're not fenced into the farm But again, why is that even possible? The only reason that even works at all is because sheep are known to heft to Local areas so even if they had the choice to wander elsewhere even in an unfenced pasture They wouldn't normally be inclined to they still like to heft to preferred areas. They still like to stay with a flock It's in their nature to behave that way. Okay So in other words, you could give sheep all the space in the world and they still choose to stay in their preferred location so Jesus using the sheep and shepherd analogy on the parable sets the foundation for eternal security Jesus's sheep hear his voice They follow him and even given the choice to wander off They would not necessarily choose to do this They stay in their flock where they belong because it's in their nature to do that So the idea of free will that are born again save person Wakes up one day and says, you know, I don't fancy this eternal life business to hell with that You know, I'm just going to wander off. Well, that's that's very problematic It violates the very concept of being born again being a new creature. Why would you choose to walk away from everlasting life? That's ridiculous and and Peter showed us back in our study of John chapter 6 that there is nowhere else to go He said Lord, where would we go? You know, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life There's no where else to go. Okay, so free will it doesn't work So In now in actual farming so if kept in confined fields sheep may eventually consume most of the flora and Need to be moved to another field and this just helps us understand exactly what Jesus means in Versus three foreign night. So, you know, he says the porter opens the sheep here He calls out his own sheep. He leads them out. They go be he goes before them and they follow him And then he says I am the door if any man entering he shall be safe Notice it says he shall go in and out. Well, if you've entered into eternal life, why would you go in and out in an Out but notice how he says that he says they go in and out and whether they go in whether they go out They find pasture. Okay, so, you know, if you're in eternal life, why would you go in and out? Well that that all he's doing is just you know, people understand how shepherding works This makes perfect sense. They go in here. They find pasture. They come out of here and go in there They find pasture. Okay, and the shepherd has to lead them between fields because that's what the shepherd has to do Okay, and this just helps us to understand what it means to follow Jesus and what would happen if the sheep Went astray. Okay So then well, what happens if she wanders away from the flock? Well, does it lose its salvation according to conditional security or in the one saved always saved model? Might you say that while they were the sheep was never saved to begin with well You might also ask will it be devoured by the the wolf that Jesus mentioned in verse 12? So let's let's explore what what happens there. So In John 10 Jesus does not discuss The prospects of a lost sheep. So so from John 10 itself There's no clear teaching available from here that explains what would happen if a sheep wanders away. Okay? What we can do if we like we can some some help from the other Gospels where Jesus did talk about this concept But we must understand before we read them The context of the parable of the lost sheep is different to what he's talking about in John chapter 10. Very important that you understand that. Okay So in Matthew's and Luke's Gospel the parable of the lost sheep It really refers more to Jesus going out and reaching the lost, you know those outside Rather than those who are already inside going astray now We'll try to apply it to John chapter 10 But it is a different conversation that Jesus is having here So, you know Jesus says I'll just read one of them that if any if any man You know if any man has a hundred sheep whoever he is a notice He doesn't say me is any man including you has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray Does he not leave the 99 goes out into the mountains and seeks that which has gone astray and then if he finds it He rejoices. Okay, and so both parables in both examples They read slightly differently because the slightly different conversations, but the word is slightly different, but it's the same principle If you even if you have a hundred sheep and you lose one you will you will go out and get it. Okay so Jesus asks that question. He asked that question rhetorically Which man would not leave the 99 sheep to go out into the mountains or the wilderness to find that that Worn stray sheep and notice that it's not just Jesus Which man any man including you would do this? So it's not just well, Jesus is a good shepherd so he would go and do it No, you would do this as well Even if you had a hundred sheep you would still go out for that lot sheep. Okay, so it stands to reason you will do it Well, so will Jesus. Okay Now then ask this question it why would any man if you have 99 perfectly good sheep Why would you even bother to go out for one sheep at all? Why not just cut your losses and let it go? Okay. Well, what you must understand is that sheep have some Intrinsic value now that might be financial value for a lot of farmers in some cases It might even be sentimental value where people see their sheep more as pets or whatever else But but sheep have some some value whether financial sentimental or otherwise So if a man is prepared to go out and get one sheep when he's already got 99 other sheep There must still be some value to that sheep to make it worth going through the this effort Okay, because if you had a bag of a hundred sweets and you lost a sweet You're not gonna go looking for that sweet. You'd count it as a loss Okay, and even if you drop that sweet on a dirty floor, you'd probably still throw it away Okay, you would count that as a loss. So to go out and get a sheep There must be some value to the sheep to make it worth going out for okay So then more over Jesus even made a commitment So, you know if any man other than Jesus will go out and do this well Obviously it stands to reason that Jesus will do this if he's the good shepherd So Jesus made a commitment in John 10 I Give or I lay my life down for the sheep I know my sheep and I am known of my sheep and no man is able to pluck my sheep out of my hand Those are all the commitments that Jesus made to his sheep in John chapter 10. Okay so then When moving from plate sheet from place to place So if your sheep have expired all of their food in this field and you need to move them across to this field The shepherd has a specific duty To keep the flock together to ensure that the sheep do not scatter. That's his job That is his responsibility. It's not while the sheep need to make sure that they're staying with the flock The shepherd has a job to do to keep the sheep together. Okay, so typically as far as I understand it the shepherd leads from the front and Sheep can be trained to follow certain signals to some extent or you know, if this food involved, they'll probably follow But the shepherd may also require the aid of servants and other herders Now the predatory nature of dogs means that obviously dogs can be trained to be sheep dogs and herd as well This practice does go back several thousands of years even in Western Asia But it is questionable how much they would be utilized in a Jewish society because Livitically, they were unclean animals So I'm not sure how much they would have utilized sheep dogs But but nevertheless the principle is there you can use a sheep dog to do this as well to act as a herder so Some herders may be healers in that they lead from the back and some may be headers in that they they lead from The front so whatever the scenario the shepherd or his team need to keep the flock together They need to create an artificial perimeter Around the sheep to prevent break-off groups. So the objective is to keep the flock together You don't want any groups splintering off and breaking into their own groups. You keep the flock together That's his job. That's what he's supposed to do. Okay now then conditional security advocates They create a false paradigm to get around this passage, which is not really very consistent with the chapter So under their model, they'll say well the sheep you have free will you can wander off? So the sheep will wander away from the protection of the shepherd Where they may be consumed by the wolf if they don't turn back and they'll equate that with with losing his salvation And so Jesus essentially has to say that while the sheep can leave his own free will I won't bother to go out You know, maybe he'll come back if it repents and you know gets his salvation back But you know if he doesn't do that then the wolves will get to him first So, you know that this is all left up to the sheep to decide what he's going to do The shepherd doesn't go out for it here And this is under their model and then the wolf is there waiting to devour the sheep that that's not under the protection of the Shepherd anymore, and I've I've covered that in another video where I Exposed a PUC on apologetics because this was the kind of argument that he was making to say that we can lose our salvation Well This presents us with a couple of issues. Okay According to the parable of the lost sheep the shepherd Goes out for the sheep the sheep the sheep don't do their own about turn to find their way back It's the shepherd going out for the sheep now to get the context is different, but that's what the parable is Now also if we look at verse 12 in John chapter 10 the wolf Is not out there in the wild You know Sneaking around waiting to consume any sheep that happen to go astray The bible actually says in in John 10 12 that the wolf actually comes towards the flock of sheep Now if if someone was a hyaling he would see the wolf coming and he would run away from the sheep And then the wolf could get all of the sheep Okay, but because jesus is the good shepherd and he even lays his life down for the sheep The wolf is going towards the the entire flock of sheep even with the shepherd there Okay, the wolf is not out there somewhere waiting for any sheep that happen to go astray and there's no shepherd to protect them So the conditional security model is completely wrong with how this passage has framed this parable. Okay Now an objection that they might take to that another objection that will take to this passage is that well No other man can pluck you from out of his hand But that doesn't mean that you yourself can't walk away from christ and um How they might reason this is that the word pluck is synonymous with the word snatched which is typically an action associated with taking something or or seizing Something or someone else you don't you don't seize yourself. You don't pluck yourself. You don't snatch yourselves. That that's how they reason that objection Now the first problem with their interpretation is that versus 28 and 29 they don't say Any other man shall not pluck them out of my hand They just simply say any man or no man is able to pluck them out And so Jesus could have just said other if that's what he wanted us to think So the conclusion is then that you are included in any or no man. Okay But then the second problem is that these verses use Absolute language rather than conditional language because if it's conditional security while there's no conditional language is it does You know, it does not say If they follow me where I go then they shall never perish and no man is able to pluck them It just says I know them. They follow me. I give them onto them. They never perish neither shall any man pluck them There's no further conditions here So the prospect of a sheep that stops following him is simply not addressed and not available here. Okay Now the third problem is that if if a sheep were let's just entertain them and say that a sheep Were to wander away. Okay Well, something or someone Drew them away So a safe person so-called did not just wake up one day and say hey, I want to lose my salvation because why not? Okay, if somebody departs from the faith and they leave christianity What drew them away or who drew them away? You know, was was he listening to an atheist debunk christianity with science? Was he listening to some other gospel or some other truth or some weird heresy? Okay, was he listening to a hater of god explain how horrible they think the bible is and now he agrees with them Did the children of this world tempt him with the pleasures of sin? Was he afraid that his safety or relationships would be affected by His belief and so if someone quote unquote lost their salvation or eternal life Well, then something or someone Must have plucked them out of jesus hand And so if we trust jesus to fill what he said he would then wondering from the faith only works The only way this can work Is if the lord was not holding on to their hand in the first place and if he wasn't holding on to their hand They were never saved. Okay, but you can't say that they had eternal life Otherwise you have to accuse jesus of being a liar or a failure by not Succeeding in what he said you set out to do okay The fourth problem is that jesus explained this twofold So as well as his own hand holding on to us He also explained that the father's hand is holding on to us also And jesus goes on to explain that the father is greater than all okay You or your hand is not greater than the father's hand Okay, so there's another problem with you just walking away from christ the father's holding on to your hand in you No man is greater. Well, you're not greater than his hand either. Okay Another considerable problem then with all that stuff that we've just been Looking at with the value of sheep and all that kind of stuff Another can consider a problem with losing our salvation. It is the severe misunderstanding About how the concept of ownership Actually works. So let's let's look at how this works. So Consider the fact that you've you've got property. You've got things that you own as property And then you've got things that you own Kind of as non-property if you like and then you've got things that you don't own Okay, and then you've got things that you have a strong sentimental or emotional attachment to and things that you don't have a strong attachment to so Your pets such as your dog or cat may be legally considered property They do not have the same degree of autonomy as a person But you may still have very strong sentimental attachment to them as if they were a member of your family, right? Your children and your spouse are not strictly speaking your property That's not really the right word But they do they do have some degree of autonomy at least and they do have a belonging to you You know, they're your children or they your wife or your husband or whatever So you kind of own them in the sense of them not being your property And then you've got your friends and family members outside of your home that do not belong to you But they they have a strong value to you emotionally sentimentally your friends or whatever And then obviously there's things that you own as property, but they are just property They're not living things. You don't have a strong attachment to them Now I understand that some of you may have a strong attachment to your car or your house But you know, it's only a matter of time when that thing breaks down You're getting another one, but your children are not equally as replaceable So your personal belongings are your property, but beyond that Not all of those items really have a strong Value to you and even if you do have some strong value value on your things You know, eventually they'll wear and tear and you'll replace them with something else Eventually you'll decide I need a new house or a new car So you don't have a strong attachment to that item as you would a member of the family. Okay Now sheep technically speaking are property. Okay, especially in the ancient world even more so than now So while shepherds may or may not have some sentimental attachment to them They have very very limited free will as we expose, you know, they can go up and down But they're still limited in free will according to the confines of the shepherd As we explored earlier. So language indicates here That Jesus places much stronger value On his sheep given that he's willing to lay their life down for him. So yes, they are property But sheep does have a strong attachment to them as if they were people. Okay Like you would your family or, you know, your pets or whatever. Okay So If we understand that sheep are valuable property Well in the ancient world where farming was the most common occupation A person's wealth could be measured by the size of his flock And very often the bible does use the size as a flock as a measure of wealth or, you know, a description of wealth These are valuable assets that need protecting. Okay Now in the modern world sheep may be considered less valuable proportionately to other types of property But nevertheless A farmer must still protect these assets anyway because the profit margins for farming are actually very small Or very fragile and on some years farmers can actually lose money. Okay, so Consider the fact that a farmer spends hundreds of pounds or dollars if you will On the purchase of sheep and then obviously if you're buying a whole flock of sheep Well that your costs amount to thousands of pounds or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds or dollars You know It's just so expensive to buy a flock of sheep and arrange all the fencing and buy this and buy that and set up this and set up that You know, get your sheep dog get your hired servants and so on now in the uk in my country Sheep's wool Their wool and coats if you shave a whole sheep that that amount of wool that you'll get is now worth Less than one pound or even in the united states it would amount to less than a dollar. Okay Now it might amount to maybe Roughly a canadian dollar or an australian dollar, but perhaps even less than that. Okay Their their wool and coats are almost worthless They're worth so little money and yet the shepherd has spent so much money on his flock now A farmer will already lose some of his sheep to injury and disease and various other reasons So even if sheep are worth much less today They're still very valuable to protect if you're if you have any hope of turning a profit If you're going to farm sheep and you're going to incur all of this cost You have a profit that you need to turn and so even you're keeping your sheep They're still valuable assets that you want to protect You're not just going to let a sheep wonder off and just well I hope that some of them will make it to the end No, you need to keep as many of those sheep protected and you know valuable as you can. Okay So it's not in a shepherd's interest To just let sheep wander off and go their own way and let them have their own free will Sheep are far too valuable. Okay, and their property they belong to the shepherd Shepherds need to protect their assets and protect their profit margins, you know in actual application So you can quickly see then how conditional security and their free will argument falls apart very quickly Because they say well, you have free will you can just wonder off Well, then why isn't the shepherd going out and protecting his sheep? Because in a parable about sheep and shepherding, that's what you would go out and do You don't just let sheep wander off. It doesn't happen. Okay So what does all of this information teach us then? Well It's the shepherd's responsibility To keep the flock together and to protect his sheep and since they are his property He is obliged to hold on to them. Okay If Jesus is the good shepherd, then he must succeed in fulfilling his responsibility And so we can then see why John chapter 10 doesn't address the prospect of a sheep wandering away and losing its salvation Because that would violate the principle of Jesus being a good shepherd. Okay So the prospect of a believer wandering from the faith is just simply incompatible with this passage John 10 does not even address this issue directly. Okay. We just we have no example of this in John chapter 10