 All I ask is that you do not take what I say personally. I get more comments from older videos regarding salvation. And if someone's going to say in a comment that I'm going to show you that salvation or in particular one saved always saved is my favorite topic. Well, my favorite topic is salvation. Why? Because that's literally the point and purpose of the Bible. That's the greatest thing that we can hang our hat on. It's one thing that we are grateful for. We're not grateful for money in the account. We're not grateful for good health. If all we're going to do with that is then take it to hell. No, we are grateful that we have salvation in Christ. And in that the Bible is clear that our salvation is eternal. And we have it right now lasting. And so that being stated, this person left a comment on another video that I called that I entitled unbiblical. And everything in the video was dealing about things that people believe, state or say that is unbiblical, meaning it is not in the Bible. And one of the things that we talk about or that people talk about a lot is loss of salvation. And the definition of something being unbiblical is that it's not in the Bible. So if there's no example of it in the Bible, then guess what? By definition, it is unbiblical. And so what example do we cite a lot that's not in the Bible? There's no examples of it. There's no there's no stories of it. That is someone losing their salvation. And so this person says that Corey has Dr. Brown on the list, a man that thoroughly cleaned his cloths, facts in my opinion, on what seems to be Corey's favorite subject, one saved always saved. Yes, why is in salvation your favorite subject? It ought to be. But his belief is that Dr. Brown cleaned my clock. We had a formal debate. Now, in terms of holding onto the rules, he did. He knows the rules of formal debates far better than I do. And I'll never want to do a formal debate again, not because of what happened, because I don't think that he made a point. Not one, but you don't get a chance to actually bring out or flesh out your points that you're trying to make. I would much rather have a conversation. And even in the conversation we had about tongues, we were only limited to an hour. I want to have a conversation where there's at least two hours and we can kind of go through things at our own pace and not rush through things. But that's another story for another time. He says Corey was essentially left dealing with one passage in John while Dr. Brown provided a myriad of scriptures. He covered a lot of scriptures. I did too. Now, I did not introduce my scriptures early on, because, again, I wasn't familiar with the rules. My mistake. Nobody's fault but mine. However, this one passage, which I did more than one passage, but this one passage is one of the one passages that I bring up. And there's a reason for that one passage. But as he says, since only one passage needed to hold to a doctrine, Corey, how about First Corinthians 14? Now, this is about forbidden speaking tongues. Well, have I ever forbade anyone from speaking in tongues? And so I don't know the point that he's trying to make. But my response was similarly along those lines that I ever do such a thing in terms of forbidden tongues or have I ever said I was a satanist. But I says, as for the debate, Brown had a better grasp on the formal debate rules yet still couldn't answer that one verse. And we're going to look at that in a second. He says, he referred me to two other men who also don't answer that same verse, which is true. We're going to look at that also. His response after that was, in a test of intelligence, you may have seen the common four or five items shown with the question, which of these figures or items do not belong. I don't know if any intelligent question, any test of intelligence that says one of these things is not like the other. As a matter of fact, that reminds me of a nursery rhyme. Not something to do with intelligence, but I digress on that. He says, your thumbnail is either clickbait because a smart Christian knows a difference or you're simply rather foolish. And so he uses the wrong word for your, it should be Y-O-U, apostrophe, R-E. You are simply rather foolish in my opinion, which is fine. You are free to state that I'm foolish in your opinion. We'll see how foolish and just a little bit. Lastly, if the crux of your soteriology is hanging on one verse, rethink it. It is not hanging on one verse. But continuing, I and others were not caught up in the whole debate etiquette, rather the substance. Have a good day, brother. So let's deal with this. Again, every person on the list, and if you go back and watch the video, the video was things that people believe that are unbiblical. They're all brothers and sisters in the Lord, or all brothers and sisters in the Lord can believe something that's not biblical and still be Christian, okay? But believing something that's not in the Bible is by definition unbiblical. Can this person or anyone on the planet ever cite a case in the Bible where someone had salvation, someone had the Holy Spirit in them, and then lost that salvation? No, so by definition it is unbiblical. Now, that being the case, I want to go and look at a couple of other things. I want to look at one, I had a conversation with a person who has challenged me on the topic of one saved, always saved. And in the conversation, I have cited a rule. So before I even go to that, let's go to the one verse that people think that that's my only verse, but let's go to that verse anyway. That is John 10, 28. And then it says, And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. The purpose for me citing that is because one, if there's ever an example where Jesus or someone in the Bible said that it is literally impossible for you to lose your salvation, then we should cite it. Is it possible that someone could say in the Greek, it's impossible to lose your salvation? Is that possible? Well, sure. Just like you can say in English, it's impossible to lose your salvation. You can also say it in the Greek, meaning we've got such an example. As a matter of fact, we've got quite a few examples of that. We have what's called an emphatic negation of either a subjunctive or a future active indicative. A subjunctive just really briefly is words that convey potential might make. And so if you have a double negation, it negates the potential of it happening. And so if I say that it is literally impossible, there is literally no potential of you ever perishing. If I say that in the Greek, then that's exactly what Jesus says and that's exactly what it means. Or if I say with a double negation in front of a future active indicative, meaning something will happen in the future, but if I give a double negation, then I'm saying that it is literally impossible. It will never, ever, ever, ever happen, not even in the future. Both of these double negations, emphatic negations, negate the possibility of something happening both now or in the future, whether it be a subjunction or a future active indicative being negated, both of those do the same thing. And we're going to look at both of those. The reason why I bring up John 10-28 is because at present, I have not found one Greek scholar. When I say Greek scholar, not a person that graduated that took Greek. No, someone who is a Greek grammarian, someone that studies the Greek text, someone maybe on a translation committee, somebody. Are there people who are scholars who disagree with one saved always saved? Sure, but can they answer this question? I have not found one. And if there is one, I just want someone to point me to one and I want to see their response. Dr. Brown brings up two people's names and we'll see if they actually covered. They do not. But I had a conversation with a person who's got another channel. He goes by the name of Mauler. He was on and we had the conversation and I was talking to him about the rule. The challenge was get anyone refute my exegesis, my exegesis of the Greek text. Here it is in the Greek. It says, notice what it says. And I give to them life eternal. That's clause A. Clause B. Caio me apolontai and they will never perish. That's clause B. Clause C and says, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. We're going to come back to that clause C as well. But we are not going to have a passage where clause A contradicts clause B. Clause B contradicts clause C. That would be kind of strange if any one of those clauses contradicts the other. So even in English, if we look at it, I give them eternal life. Well, if a person could ever perish, if a person could ever walk away, well then that would negate, that would contradict clause A that I give eternal life. Certainly clause B that they will never perish if a person could walk away. This is literally what Jesus is saying, they can never walk away. There's more to it to that. And there's a reason why he brings in clause C and no one could ever snatch them out of my hand, which is why it says, the Father who has given them to me is greater to all. But notice what he says in the Greek and my interpretation, my exegesis of the Greek. But because I'm not a Greek scholar, does that negate the fact that I can read the Greek, understand the rules, apply the rules properly? Does not at all. As a matter of fact, I know for a fact that I am doing this properly as you look at any Greek text, as you look at any Greek grammar, be it intermediate or advanced, a beginning Greek Bible study, you can't find anyone that negates. As a matter of fact, they always seem as far as I can find affirm what I'm saying. I didn't invent the rule. And the rule is not only applied to this, it's applied to other areas. When Jesus says that not one jot or tilt shall pass away before heaven and earth pass away, that particular passage Jesus makes, he uses this in fact negation, meaning that it is literally impossible for heaven and earth to pass away before his words be fulfilled. So it's not just used here. And if you take that same rule and apply it, we know it's impossible for it to happen. Similarly here, we have what's called a double negation of a subjunctive. When you have the oo, which is no, not, never, may, same thing, those two words before this subjunctive, which is to perish or may perish. In this, in this case, apalontai means may perish. It says no, not ever, ever, ever, surely not ever, never, ever, perish. And I was extra emphatic with that because that's literally what it says. Jesus is making the statement that perishing in the future is literally an impossibility. He says that there is no possibility of them perishing in the future. And he, and we reference Daniel Wallace, one of the preeminent Greek scholars on the planet, one of the preeminent Greek textual critics, textualists, we reference him because in his book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, he references this rule. Other folks reference this rule as well, other Greek scholars as well. And what is being negatized is the possibility of perishing in the future. In other words, nothing in the future, according to how this rule is used, shows that a person can perish. So when I had this conversation with this person in Mahler, listen to what he says. It's an improper use of that rule. That's it. And all I'm saying is, all I'm saying is this, if you're going to say that it's an improper use of the rule and you don't know the rule, how do you make that statement? Now, I'll replay that again, but he had no idea what the rule is. I read the rule, he misunderstood the rule, I showed him the rule even more so and went further into the rule. And so he's getting an understanding of the rule that no Greek, it's not a knock against him, but he had no Greek, certainly doesn't know the rule. And so I'm explaining to the rule for the first time, him hearing the rule, he tells me that I am misapplying the rule. Yeah, the rule that he's never heard of before, the rule that he didn't know of before, as well as to say that Daniel Wallace, Dr. Daniel Wallace also is misapplying the rule. So let me go, I want to go ahead and put it back on the screen and let me rewind this. You know the rule, you educated me on it and I think it's an improper use of that rule. That's it. And all I'm saying is, all I'm saying is this, if you're going to say that it's an improper use of the rule and you don't know the rule how do you make that statement? And I do know the rule. You educated me on it and I could see that you're improperly using it because that's what I thought before. And now today I have to confirm, I don't agree with your use of the rule. Nor Daniel Wallace has said that that's his commentary, that he comes to the conclusion? Absolutely not. And now that I know that he is what? Osas, I'm really going to be skeptical. I'll take it, but I'm also going to find others. And when I find others, they're going to say, no, I can't say that it says that. Now a couple of things. First of all, it's the height of arrogance. It's actually, let's just be honest, it's foolish to state that the doctor, the scholar, the actual scholar, not me because also it'd be foolish to even say that this guy who knows Greek, who just told you about the rule, who educated you about the rule, which he also said, you just educated me about the rule, to come back and say that you don't know the rule. You misapplied, you misused the rule. And then to say that Daniel Wallace has also misapplied the rule. Can we find a scholar, one scholar, one Greek grammarian who will say, no, Daniel Wallace has misapplied this rule. Can we find one that says in any of the other Greek grammars, intermediate or advanced or even basic beginners that will say that that is an improper use of this text, of this grammatical rule. You see people like the Bill of Mounds or Robert of Mounds. You've seen the Buies fans. You've seen the other people who have stated the same thing. This is a proper use of the rule. This is what the rule is referring to. This is how you use it. And so to come back and say that no, I didn't know the rule. You educated me on the rule. And now that you did, I see that you've misused it. No, that's just apt. That is silliness at a highest level. That's what it really is. It's arrogance. It's an unwillingness to see that you might be wrong. And someone can say that, Cory, you're unwilling to see that you're wrong. But remember, I used to believe the exact same thing as stubborn as I was and maybe still am. I was not willing to bend. But in the face of the scriptures and in the face of the rule, what am I going to do? Say that they're wrong. Why? I have no basis to state that I am or that they are wrong or and I am right. Again, so that is the problem. But then, going back to the comment that the other person had about Dr. Wallace, I'm sorry, not Dr. Wallace, but Dr. Brown, he stated that that that one verse, that one passage. And so when I had the debate with Dr. Brown, I want you guys to hear how he responded to what I said. Do you interpret John 1028, the Greek of John 1028 to mean that a person can not or I mean that the person can in fact perish? If so, why would you do so? Now, the question was, do you interpret John 1028 to mean or to show that a person could perish? Let's put the pastor on the screen. And they will never perish, clause B. So the question is, do you interpret that to mean that they could perish? When it literally says, even in English, they will never perish. But you interpret that, there's a way to interpret that to mean that you could perish. Okay. Let's listen to his response. Because John 1027 identifies the sheep as those who are on going way, listen to his voice and follow him. So you can be a sheep and then you can cease to be a sheep. Those who are his sheep and this is a constant theme and the same in John 637 to 40. Now a couple of things. It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that if anything, there's no conditioned place on that. However, even if we take that, I don't have a problem with you putting a condition in there. By the way, go find that condition. Go find a word or a phrase, a clause that is conditional. But if John 1027 is being taken, if you are my sheep, does it ever say that you will stop being a sheep? Show the passage. Speaking of unbiblical, show a passage in the Bible that says a person will ever stop being a sheep. In verse 27 says, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. What is it saying? This is telling them what sheep do. Sheep hear his voice. This is in the indicative, so it's saying what sheep are doing. It's not a condition. It doesn't say that that sheep, if the sheep keep hearing my voice, that's not what it says, dear Dr. Brown, and he should know better. It does not say if they keep hearing my voice and if I keep knowing them and if they keep following me, that is not what it says in anywhere in John 10 or as it relates to this issue. We don't find that. So you cannot say that that's what John 10-27 is saying. It says that he's really stating what his sheep do. We'll come back to more of John 10 in just a second, but again, what does verse 10-28 say? The tendency of them because they cannot get past 10-28 is to say, well, the reason why John 10-28 doesn't say what it looks like it says is because you've got to really understand what's being stated in 27, what we do, as well as all of John 10. 44. Speaking of those who continue in the faith, those who persevere in the faith. But then the Greek of this are such as Dr. Stevens, Dr. Mounds, Dr. Fanning, or Dr. Wallace, and they will tell you that implicit in this double negation, this emphatic negation of subjunctive means that the sheep cannot stop following. The sheep cannot walk away. The sheep cannot stop being sheep because of this ume apollon type. How does a person get around this grammatical construction of the Greek and say that now, all of a sudden, the Greek rules don't matter? Well, that's the interpretation of some scholars. Surely you know other scholars. I would hope you've researched enough. Now, he says, surely other scholars would disagree. Let me have one. Let me have one that not just people that understand Greek that disagree. I want an actual Greek grammar. But they don't deal with the text. And that's the problem that I have, including those that he points me to. That you know other scholars who don't read it like that. I haven't found one. You don't understand the text to say that. But I have found one. Let's check out Professor Robert Gagnon. Start there. Okay. Take out Professor Robert Gagnon. And what he has to say about, one saved always says, he's a highly, highly respected Greek and New Testament scholar. I've heard other scholars say so, but I've never heard, and I'm still waiting, for one Greek scholar or one Greek grammarian to refute what I'm saying in John Tenton. That's not me saying it. Cory, Cory, I'm answering you. There are other Greek scholars who differ. But they're not a Greek scholar. I'm a Greek scholar. But you're not a Greek scholar either. So you're relying on these others. Okay, so a couple of things. One, you didn't answer the question. All he did was deflect and say, go look at someone else. But they have to say, and you're not a Greek scholar either. Okay, fine. We don't have a Greek scholar. So that means we have to wait to interpret this passage when we get a Greek scholar. And oh, by the way, let's go to one of the ones he spoke of, Robert Gagnon, who he put as a Greek scholar. He's not a Greek scholar. He knows Greek. His area of expertise is, I don't think it's the Greek, as a matter of fact, in looking at his bona fides, and it didn't seem like it is. But here's his response to John 10, 28. Oomee plus the subjunctive and emphatic negation. He says, surely indeed not. But that says nothing about one saved, always saved. The key question is, who are the sheep? Verse 27 is clear. Verse 28, does not apply to those who stop following Jesus. So notice what he's saying. He's saying, the key question is, who are the sheep? Well, that's never really been the issue. We know who the sheep are. Jesus is describing the sheep. And so what does he do? What everyone else who cannot deal with 10, 28, they say, well, you've got to understand everything else first, which we do, but he's making as though that 10, 27 is a conditional, that if you keep following, if you keep hearing, says the key questions, who are the sheep? 27 is clear. Verse 28, does not apply to those who stop following Jesus. Because we never state that sheep will ever stop following Jesus. As a matter of fact, John 10 earlier tells us that sheep do not stop following Him. They'll keep following Him. And he says, all New Testament authors and Jesus presume that it is possible for genuine believers to fall away or at least want their audience to believe or think that. Where do we find that in the Scriptures? Give one example of someone ever falling away. Give one example of someone who was a believer who stopped being a believer. You cannot. That's the problem. Because you have pigeonholed yourself into an argument that you can lose your salvation, which by the way, to me, this is just me, is the height of arrogance. This is you having something to boast about, that you are the one that's keeping yourself safe. Because you understand the rules that God has laid out because you love Him so much, because you just don't want to sin, that you have kept yourself from falling away. You can't keep yourself. That's the great lesson that we've learned from thousands of years of biblical history from Genesis up to the cross. You can't keep yourself from sinning. That's why Jesus says, that's one of the words, I'm sorry, Paul says in Romans that there are none good, not anyone. No one is righteous. No one is seeking after Him. That's the whole point. And so let's go to John 10, because again, this one scripture that the person brings up says that it's the only one. First of all, it's not the one scripture, but can we find somebody, and I might bother somebody on this, but if you're going to say that it's the one scripture, we'll find some one person who is going to refute this one scripture. Whether it's Gagnon, whether it's Robert Shakerny brings up, none of them deal with 1028. They're saying that a person has to keep being a sheep. Where is that in John 10? So let's go to John 10, and let's start in verse 4. And you find someone, I will, listen, my wife hates when I say this, but I want to say this, and I want to be as clear, as concise, I want to be as bold and confident as what I'm going to say, because I want the people that disagree, who vehemently disagree, to go to this passage and show me where the if is, whether if you stop being a sheep is, if you stop following, or you must keep following, you must know implicit in John 10 is that sheep will. This is what sheep do. It's like, if a fire remains hot, well, no, that's what fire is. Fire is hot. Not that the fire has to remain hot. Sheep keep following. Sheep here, that is Jesus's sheep. So let's go to the passage, John 10, 4. Jesus says that when he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them. And the sheep follow him. The sheep are found. This word, the Greek word is aquiloufe, which is that they are following the present act of indicative. It may not refer to that. That's what they're going to keep doing. However, we're going to see that's actually what he's saying. Sheep are following him because they know his voice. So why are the sheep following him? Because they know his voice. And now verse five, you might want to add this to one of those one passages. It's not just one passage, but this is also one of my favorite passages. Why look what he says and notice the rule coming up here. A stranger in the English says they simply will not follow. Now, that's a nice way of putting it. A stranger, they simply will not follow. This is Jesus trying to get you to understand. What do you take away when Jesus says a stranger, they, the sheep, his sheep simply will not follow? How do you take that to say that a stranger, they will follow? Jesus says, said they simply will not follow. Can I tell you how emphatic this is? This is one of those double negation of a future active indicative. He says a stranger, and then we have here, who may accluthasus in. This accluthasus, this is a future active indicative, meaning he is negating the possible act of it happening in the future. It cannot occur anywhere in the future. The future possibility of them following a stranger is implicitly and emphatically negated. By who? By Jesus. Maybe Jesus did know the rule. Maybe the writer, John, did know the rule. Maybe that's what it is. But a stranger, they simply will not follow, but coming up a stranger, they simply will not. They will never, ever, ever follow. Who are they? The sheep. So he's describing what sheep do, and he says a sheep, they will not ever, ever, ever follow this strange voice, but they will flee. They will flee. This is a future, a plural future middle indicative. They will flee. This is what they will do. This is what sheep will do. Jesus didn't say if they flee. No, he says they will flee. Who will flee? The sheep. Why will the sheep flee? Because hotting Uqoydasim was because not. They know. They don't know the voice. They will not. So a sheep does not know the voice of Islam. A sheep does not know the voice of Hinduism, Buddhism. A sheep does not know the voice of atheism. A sheep does not know some strange voice bidding them to leave the fold. The sheep doesn't know that. Will a sheep be wavered at some point in time? Yeah, but they're his sheep. So what will they ultimately end up doing? They'll keep following him. They may not follow in a straight line. They might follow kind of in a zag line or whatever, but they will keep following him. Why do I say so? Because that's literally what Jesus said. Not my words, but his word. He says this. They do not know the voice of the stranger. Whatever this strange voice is going to be, they will not know. And if anyone wants to say no, he's talking about Jewish sheep. Well, let's go to verse 14. He says, I am the good shepherd. And I know my own. I know my own. There's nothing conditional about that. There's no if there. If I know my own, then my own will know me. No, I know my own. If they know me. No, he says my own. I mean my own, know me. He says first, I know my own and my own know me. Even as the father has, even as the father knows me and I know the father and I laid down my life for the sheep, which sheep, his sheep. He says also, I have other sheep. Who are the other sheep? Well, obviously this is a Gentile. So he's speaking about, he's talking to the Jews at this moment. He says I have other sheep which are not of this fold. He says I must bring them also. And look what he says. They will hear my voice. So what will sheep, the Gentile sheep also do? They will hear his voice. This Greek word right here, Akkosusan, this is a, this is future. And so they will do this in the future. Future actor or digger. They will hear his voice and they will become one flock with one shepherd. Now, what's the problem with the Jews? Well, the Jews have a huge issue that Jesus brings up. He says, but you do not believe. You do not believe. Why? Because you are not. Hattueste, because not are of the probatile. You are not my sheep. But my sheep, Jesus says, my sheep, who are his sheep that he described earlier? They hear his voice. They follow him. They won't follow any other voice. They simply will not follow but they will run or flee from another strange voice. That's what Jesus says. And so he says, those very same sheep that I'm talking about, I'm giving them eternal life and they will never, ever, ever. He said, it's literally impossible for them to perish. Is there a way to say that something is a possibility from happening in the future? There's two ways, an emphatic, a double negation, an emphatic negation, double negation of a subjunctive and of a future actor and digger. We have both of those cases here in John 10 in verses five and in verse 28. Now, there's only three possibilities that are there for persons salvation. That is if God turns his back on them they or we turn our back on him or someone snatches us. Well, the third one is taken away because he says and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My father who has given them who's the them, the sheep. His father, God has given us to who? To Jesus. That's important. We'll deal with that in a second. And he is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of the father's hand. So the third option, someone snatching us out of his hand, that can't happen. But what about the first two options that we could possibly either turn our back on him or he can turn out his back on us. Well, one of my other one favorite verses is Jeremiah 32 39. Look what he says and I will give them one heart and one way and they may that they may fear me always for their own good and for the good of their own children. Look what he says. I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them to do them good and I will put the fear of me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from me. So two things that God has stated. One, he will not once his spirit is in us and we'll deal with the fact that someone might bring up he's talking about Israel. We'll deal with that. We'll see that it's not just Israel he's talking to because he's also going to apply this to Gentiles. We'll deal with that in just a second. But all those whom he puts his spirit in he says he's not going to turn his back on them and they will not turn their back on him. So one possibility is him turning his back turning away. He says that's not going to happen. The second possibility is us with his spirit in us turning away from him. He says that's not going to happen. And then the other the long possibility is that neither turn their back on the other but someone comes and snatches them away. Jesus already foreclosed that possibility. Now dealing with this issue of having his spirit in us in Ezekiel 36 20. Let's start in verse 25. He says then I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. This is what God has said I will do this to you not you doing it to yourself but I will do this. Moreover, I will give you a new heart question. Is it just the Jews or the Gentiles that have a new heart? Is it just the Jews or the Gentiles that has his spirit in us? He says and I will put a new spirit within you and remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh which is what Jeremiah just said also. He says I will put my spirit within you and look what he says. Cause you to walk in my statues. That kind of gets rid of the the whole problem there of someone wanting to walk away from him. Someone being involved in sin toward the sin brings them or breaks fellowship completely from God. They're going to walk in his statues and you will be careful to observe my orders. That's what's going to happen when the spirit is in us. Now, is that just for Jews or is it for Jews and Gentiles? When John 3 Jesus brings his exact same thing up and he says that a person must be born of those two elements that we see in Ezekiel 36 water and spirit. A person who's born again or born of the spirit born from above or born of the spirit and so it seems as though Jesus speaking of just the Jews and he is speaking to a Jewish person to a Pharisee that is Nicodemus but he also says that we're also told that this replies us because in John 1 12 as a matter of fact let's go there but as many as received him to them he gave the right to become children of God even to those who believe in his name. So those who believe in his name as many this word hasoi which includes not just Jews but Gentiles all the folks whoever it is that received him he gave the right to become children of God. So he's speaking of a holistically total in total all of those those who believe it which is the word is the Pistoshin which is those that are believing so all the ones that are believing in his name and look what he says those who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man so it's not an ethnic born not of because they desire to do so nor of their own little wheel they're warning to but they were born of the will of God born of God that's all of us we know so because John tells us all of us that are believing are the ones that were born of God and going back to John 10 28 he says or 29 he says my father who has given them to me is greater so that no one can snatch them out of my hand the reason why that's important because if we go to John 6 let's go there also another one of my number one favorite verses he said Jesus says I am the bread of life he who comes or the one that's coming to me or command us the one that's coming to me will not hunger and oh by the way the word that's used here is may a double negation can I say which is this person will never ever ever ever hunger if you come to him well is it possible to hunger later after coming to him coming to him on a Monday what about next Friday no ever ever never ever ever will you hunger and he who believes this word is a hot pistol on that the one that's believing will never thirst if you are believing now you will never ever ever thirst but I say to you that that you have seen me and yet you don't believe all the father all pawn let's move this up on the greek side so you can see all that the father gives to me Jesus said in John 10 all that let's put it back on the screen so I want you to ask her to follow along with me he says my father who has given them to me given who sheep the father has given the sheep to Jesus are you with me so now he said he makes his statement I'm sorry wrong passage back to John 6 he says all that the father gives those are the very same sheep that the father's given he says they will come to me which is kind of indicative and emblematic and rings in to remember what he says in John 10 that them coming to him he says his sheep will follow they will follow they will simply not follow another voice he says all that the sheep give I mean the father give the sheep all the sheep all that he gives will come to me and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out I will certainly not cast here it is again this double negation of a subjunctive who may I follow so this rule is there too am I still misapplying the rule no I absolutely not I would love for someone to say no Cory you are applying this rule incorrectly come show us come demonstrate in the because I don't have a problem with being wrong we want to be right we want to follow what is right but we're not going to follow your guess your understanding or your misunderstanding or the fact that you don't know the word or I should say don't know the rule and because you don't know the word or don't know the Greek rule then for some other reason we're supposed to fine since you don't know it we should act as though we don't know it that's not right that's not as a matter of fact it's not very wise or smart to borrow pun that's not being a smart Christian let's figure out what we don't know learn it and apply it how about that notice what he says he says for I have come down from heaven not to my own will but the will of him who sent me this is the will of him who sent me that all that he has given who has he given the sheep all that he has given me I will lose none I will lose none but raise them in the last day now let's drop down to verse 47 and notice what he says as well John 6.47 he says truly truly I say to you that he who believes this is the hapistouan so the person is believing hapistouan the person that's believing has eternal life go to the right side the Greek eke this is present tense he has right now the one that's believing if you are sheep if you believe then what does he say right now you have zoane Ionian you have life forever you have life going into the age or actually the word is probably used you have life eternal or life into the ages so when do you have life according to Jesus unless Jesus doesn't know the rule unless I'm told I'm to believe that Jesus doesn't understand how to apply this which makes no sense Jesus states that if you believe if you believe you have at this very moment life going into the ages again if a person thinks that it's biblical that a person can lose their salvation find it in the in the bible let's get out of the habit of stating something is biblical if it's not in the bible if you don't have an example of what you believe then what you literally believe is unbiblical notice that I mean that the person is in sin they're not safe no you can be wrong and it not be sin for example if I get a math question wrong I'm wrong but is that a sin no I'm just wrong what would be wrong is to continue to stay in ignorance to be willfully wrong no matter what I don't care what you show me I'm not gonna believe it well now we've left being wrong and jumped over into pride Cory what about you no it's not that I'm proud now I'm proud of what God has done for me and that's since I'll boast about the salvation how weak I am but remember as I said before I used to believe and would fight people on the possibility of losing salvation I said that you could lose it you could always lose it but after a while just looking at the scriptures I could not do anything with it so my challenge again and I'll keep raising this challenge because it's just that important it is ridiculously important it's the one thing that he's given us that we can be secure in even if we go to to Hebrews 10 we've covered this even if we go to the passages where you think you can lose your salvation Galatians 5 or Hebrews 6 which says if you do lose it it's impossible to get it back but those are folks who just don't simply understand what the atonement is because that's what he's bringing up in Hebrews whatever passages you want to go to we've literally covered every last passage that people thought that you that states that you can lose your salvation we've covered every at least every one that's been brought up I should say it that way but no one has ever dealt with this one passage other than to say where you were applying it wrong how else could you apply it he literally says that his sheep the possibility of his sheep perishing will never happen there is no possibility of sheep ever ever ever perishing in the future his sheep will never ever ever ever ever follow a strange voice they will run away they will flee so now again one last time for the smart Christians that are out there or those that think that we're not that smart could you please intellectually run through the passages that I'm citing and tell me how I am misapplying the Greek to John 10 28 as well as John 10 5 as well as John 6 37 39 47 as well as even and I didn't break down the Hebrew but just the Hebrew if you want to of Ezekiel 36 25 through 27 tell us where we have parsed this incorrectly where we have executed this incorrectly and then you'll have something and I will apologize I'll come before everyone and say that I'm wrong so I have no problem with that I want to say what is right it's not about who's right but it's what's right and so because of this I think it's finally important why because that's what God has given us that's the gift that God has given us not tongues not being slain in the spirit not money in our bank accounts not health not none of those things and some of those things might be true might actually happen but the whole goal is salvation and don't you want to have salvation forever I should hope so