 It would be something that's prerecorded. Not really interested in doing a live. I would like to just relax. But two years, I think two years, two years, two years, two glorious years, two and a half years, I guess. Well, I've been pretty adamant in, you all know the verses I bring up. About find me a Greek scholar or a Greek, and when I say scholar, I'll tell you what I mean by scholar in a second. A grammarian who would refute my understanding of John 10, 28 in the Greek and other passages as well, but specifically that particular passage. And so in my last debate with Dr. Michael Brown, he did something that it was kind of a, I don't know if he intended to be, but it was almost a throwaway comment, meaning that here it's probably set you and then go somewhere. But in this statement, I don't know, I have this thing really, really bright. Take this down, just. I'm sorry, it's brightened my eyes right here. But he made a statement. He threw out that I should go check out a couple of different Greek scholars. Okay, fine. So let me play this particular exchange in the debate and then we'll get into it. Do you interpret John 10, 28, the Greek of John 10, 28 to me that a person can not, or I mean, that person can in fact perish? If so, why would you do so? Because John 10, 27 identifies the sheep as those who are an ongoing 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 6, 37 to 44. Speaking of those who continue in the faith, those who persevere in the faith. But then the Greek of this, and you find out, before I go to that, let me do this also. What I wanna do is, you guys actually going into being pretty much experts on John 10, 28. That is if you are not. Hey, brother, hey brother, brother Charles Layman. I'm gonna give you what he says. I'm gonna go to the passage, but I wanna show now, obviously this is not my, this is not my discovery. I didn't come up with this rule. This is just a rule of Greek. It's not a difficult rule. It's not a hard rule. It just is what it is. And what you will notice. Matter of fact, Layman, do me a favor as you look at this. When I read these, their words, when I cover their words, you tell me if they are intentional. I don't know if it's intentional or intentional. I'm not sure. But leaving out an important part of the rule. As I said before, you guys are going to be, you guys are gonna be experts on John 10, 28, and this particular Greek rule. So what I wanna do is, we go ahead and pull the rule up. Again, I'm coming from Daniel Wallace's book. The reason why I'm coming out of Daniel Wallace's book is because you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would disagree with Monk, a lot of what he says, or think that this guy is not at the top of the charts. And I'm not saying he's the best. I'm not saying he's the be-aughty-and-daught. I'm not saying that what he says or his words of gospel is that what I'm saying. All Daniel Wallace is doing is giving what these rules are. There are times where the rules or some of the writings can be taken different ways. There are. Because there are, just like in English, sometimes even in Greek, Greek is not so precise that it tells you exactly what you need to know, just like Hebrew. There is some flexibility to where it can mean this or it can mean that and oftentimes context will ultimately be the final arbiter. The problem is, when we talk about context will determine what the Greek or what the Hebrew or even what the English means is, context is many cases determined upon the reader. What I think the context says. So if you're going to make a statement, you have to earn it. Now this is where guys, this is where we are going to depart and be a little bit different than most of the other channels on YouTube. This guys is going to be, I want to be fairly thoughtful for some it might be boring, but it's helpful. We are going to intentionally be scholarly. We're going to be nerdy. All those different things are going to be, here's the word, pedantic. We are going to be, we are going to very well focus on these rules and see if they make sense. See if we're applying them because I want you all to be able to be in a position if you have, if you're not all ready to say, Hey Corey, no, I think you're seeing this wrong. This is why I want you guys to see how I read that way you can say, Hey Corey, I like the way you read, but you read it wrong. Or I think you're reading it, that your, your hermeneutics is correct, but you're understanding you're missing out something. Oh, okay. Thank you. That's why I think it's good for just like teachers would tell the kids to show your work. So I, I understand how you got this answer. I mean, I understand this is your answer. How did you get this answer? And what you're going to find out is that oftentimes or at least in this case, people who hold degrees with the doctorate, especially those that are on the opposite side, it may sound a bit arrogant, but those on the opposing side, they are not earning what they're saying. They just are not, even including the two people that he gives me to go and check them out. My, my assumption would be they don't, they probably, they're probably like everyone else. They don't deal with the text, but before I go there, let's go to Daniel Wallace and his statement on this emphatic negation. Now, I told you before that when you have a subjunctive, you all, matter of fact, you all should probably be able, many of you all will be able just to repeat this. A subjunctive is what? A subjunctive in Greek is the same as a subjunctive in English. It means probably, possibility, might, maybe, could, could be, could be not, maybe, maybe not. That's a subjunctive. Okay. That part shouldn't be difficult. If you put a negation in front of it, it minimally or possibly negate something, may not, might not, possibly not. All right. That's kind of how, that's a, that's my, my rough way of putting it. However, if you put, now it's bad English to put two negatives in front of it. In English, we don't have two negatives, even though we do speak sometimes with two negatives to make it make sense like irregardless, which is ear is a negative and read anyway. But it makes bad, it's bad English with two negatives. But in Greek, it's perfect sense. As a matter of fact, it's the strongest way to negate something in Greek two ways. I don't even care really which one you think is the more emphatic way to negate something. I lean towards a subjunctive because it eliminates the possibility. If there was a way to say it is impossible for this to happen, if there was a way to say it in Greek, this is how you say it. If there's a way to say this is impossible, it's impossible in the future for it to occur. There's another way. And we might go that, we might look at that as well. But if you're going to say that there is, like they're going to say that there's a condition implied also, then you've got to show that. You can't just assume it or because your context says, is there any words that make you think that there is a reason to say there is a condition? I'll tell you what I mean in a second. But this emphatic negation is two negatives, no and not, never ever, no, not in front of the possibility, which literally means guys, not only does it literally mean it's impossible, let's read the rule and what I've never even seen, even those that disagree, they don't disagree with the rule. So let me go ahead and just pull this on the screen so you guys can see definition of emphatic negations, ooh may plus the heiress subjunctive. And there are a few verses that he uses as examples. Now what you're going to find in most cases where this is used, most of the cases, which by the way is interesting, when you see this double negation previous to an, in this case, an heiress subjunctive, where do you typically see this? You typically see this when Jesus is speaking about salvation. Don't let that part slip you. Don't let that part go past you. You typically see this rule most often when it's dealing with salvation. Why not with anything else? Well, I think Jesus has something in mind. Again, we also need to see what is the purpose of Jesus's coming. We won't deal with that, but Jesus is the one that's making this point. And when he, and when this comes up, most often this rule shows up when it deals with salvation, when it deals with soteriology. That matters, that means something. So let's go back to what he's saying. He says, he said, one might think that the negative, I'm sorry, one might think that the negative with a subjunctive could not be as strong as the negative with the indicative. I'll bypass that part. That's just more scholarly talk, I think. But anyway, the negative is not weaker. Rather, the affirmation that is being negatized is less firm with a subjunctive. Who may, look what he's saying, guys, this is the rule. Who may rules out even the idea as being a possibility. In this case, the idea of what? Well, whatever's being negatized. In this case, perishing. Perishing, the idea of perishing is ruled out. The possibility of perishing is ruled out. Who may is the most decisive way of negatizing something in the future. This part gets overlooked. What you guys see is highlighted. Who may is the most decisive way of negatizing something in the future. So what's being negatized? The possibility of loss of salvation in the future. The possibility of perishing, according to the rule, it's on the screen, the possibility of perishing in the future is eliminated. That's the rule. Now, how do you get around the rule? Well, by not addressing it. Emphatic negation, look what he says. Emphatic negation is found primarily in the reported sayings of Jesus, both the gospel and the popular secondary in quotations, LXX, outside of these two sources, it occurs only rarely as well. So tierological theme is frequently found in such statements, especially in John. What is negatized, look what he says, is the possibility of the loss of salvation. So that's the rule. That is the rule. Now, I don't know if you all heard, Dr. Wallace has now retired from teaching. He's no longer a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Now, to give you a little background on who this man is, what he does. Now, his focus is only going to be dealing with the Greek manuscripts and making sure other people have access to the Greek manuscripts. This is the kind of prayer that's who we're talking about. This is the guy that goes out and looks at these manuscripts. If there's a such thing as a, there are savants and prodigies and so forth, there are these people that are just amazing with piano or with guitar or with art. That's kind of him, honestly, when it comes to Greek. Now, he's not the only one, obviously, but still. And so what I wanted to do was, I wanted to find somebody who would understand the rule and would say, no, Corey, no, Corey, you're reading this rule wrong. So I have, I'm talking to Dr. Brown and in talking to Dr. Brown, well, Corey, you're not a Greek scholar. I get that. Okay, fine. And I'm not a Greek scholar. He says, okay, well, fine. But do I have to have a Greek scholar or Hebrew scholar to read the passage and to ask you a question? Because if every time you make a statement and or I make a statement, ask a question and your response is the other Greek scholars this and I'll just go with what they say, well, then I can do the same thing. And then therefore that negates even the reason for even having a debate. That makes no sense. And so to me, while him trying to kind of hate Corey, you're not a scholar either. And so let's move on. Well, no, you are ignoring, you are running away from the question. It was one question. It was one question. So we'll come back to the text in a second, but let's hear Dr. Brown again. What 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 sheet cannot stop following. The sheet cannot walk away. The sheet cannot stop being sheet because of this Ume Apollon type. How does a person get around this grammatical construct 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 that's the interpretation of some scholars. Surely there are other scholars. I hope you would have researched other scholars. And I keep running into the same problem. When I look at these people or look for scholars to say different, I don't find any. I don't find any. That's the point. That's the problem. I do not find any, but he has a suggestion for me. He has someone that I should go or to someone's to somebody's that I should go listen to. But you know other scholars who don't read it like that. I haven't found one. I don't understand the text to say that. But I haven't found one. Professor Robert Gagnon, start there. Okay. Professor Robert Gagnon. And what he has to say about, once saved always saved. 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, but what John- Cory, Cory, I'm answering you. There are other Greek scholars who differ. But they're not here. I'm not a Greek scholar. I'm a Hebrew scholar, but you're not a Greek scholar either. So you're relying on these others? Now, I'm not relying on these other scholars. The only reason why I bring up, the only reason why I bring up Wallace or anyone else, because someone's gonna say, well, Cory, you don't know what you're talking about. Okay, fine. So I'll bring up the folks who they could not say. Now, I believe I know exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to this. So much so that you, sir, doctor or anyone else has not refuted what I'm saying. But if you go, but if you come back and say, well, you're not a scholar, well, here are the scholars. They say the exact same thing. I didn't write the rule. I'm just learning it as anyone else could have would. So then, but he gives us to stay, but he gives us Dr. Robert Gagnon and Robert Schenke. Robert Schenke happens to have, he's already deceased. He's already passed away, but I would like to look at what they have faded. And so we're gonna do that. Now, that being the case, here is the problem that we have with both Dr. Schenke and Gagnon. While they might be scholars, they're not grammarians. And that was one of the things that I wanted to look at that I want to have someone that was a scholar in this particular field. For example, I've got a tumor in my brain. Well, I'm not going to the world's greatest dentist. I don't care how great of a dentist he is. I'm not going to him. Or I'm not going to the world's greatest heart surgeon. I don't care. I'm not going to him. I'm not going to, I want someone who is, I wanna go to a neurosurgeon who is an expert in it. So don't point me to somebody who is a scholar, but is not a scholar when it comes to the Greek grammar. Now, let me just read their bio. I don't want you all think I'm just saying this. Robert Schenke who passed away in 2006. Let's see, he went to, if I could make this brighter so I can read this and all. He was actually, it was a pastor before at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Wichita, Kansas. He attended Ottawa University in Kansas and Southwest Baptist College. And William Jewel College in Missouri and graduated from Northeast Missouri State College in 1941. He ended up receiving his honorary doctorate, which I don't have a problem with being an honorary doctorate from Pepperdine University. He is not, he might be a scholar and scholarly, but he is not a Greek grammarian. That's the point. Same thing with Robert Gagnon. Robert Gagnon has a, he has a BA from Dartmouth. He's got some pretty good potentials in terms of the schools that he went to. A BA from Dartmouth. MDiv from Harvard. Take care of what it's worth. A PhD from Princeton. Now these are, these are excellent universities, but we'll leave that alone. But a PhD from Princeton, Theological Seminary. Does he understand Greek? Sure he does. Sure he does. Now, I would actually hope that his discourse on this would be more than what I've heard. And it was not. It was not. So let me go ahead and pull some of these things up because again, I just want you to tell me where I'm wrong. So let me go ahead and pull up John 1027 because for whatever reason, I bring up John 1028. They say, well, you gotta read John 1027. That's where the context starts. Okay. First of all, the context doesn't start. The context of John 1028 is not found in John 1027. John 1027 didn't just happen. No, let's go back to the beginning of John 10. But what he stated, what Dr. Brown stated, which is similar to what Robert Gagnon states as well as what Robert Schenck stated. But let's go to John 1028 first, I mean 1027 first. He says, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. And I give them eternal life and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand. Now remember the rule, the rule states for this that it is, let's put it back, the rule back on the screen. The rule states that the possibility of it ever happening in the future is negated. It eliminates even the possibility. What he says, who may rules out even the possibility? It's the most decisive way of negativing something in the future, that's the rule. Cory Minor didn't make up the rule. So if you wanna say, hey, Cory, you're no scholar, we'll find the scholars do understand this. And we don't get past that. And so what's being negatived, the possibility of loss of salvation in the future? So 1027, he comes back and says, well, 27 means that if you continue being a sheep or if you keep hearing his voice, if you keep following him, first of all, if it's not there. In the Greek, there are Greek words that convey if. Ice and eon, eon, they're not there. Could you convey condition without those two words? Sure, the Greek word hati and the Greek word henna. Those are not there either. Is it possible though that the present active indicative could relate to it being kind of conditional? It's possible, but the only way you get there is just by your own context. You have to make it out. You have to tell us that's what he's talking about and we have to buy it, or you have to prove it. You cannot, you literally cannot prove that that is the condition. Jesus is making a statement, a positive affirmation about what sheep are, what they do. That's what Jesus is doing. Now, here's the question though. And I said it before, and I hear you're running real cowboy. I agree. If that's a condition, well then dawg on it, that's the exact same condition before Christ came. That's for Christ came, which is why I say it would be to me a major waste of time to come and make things out to be the exact same way as it was before. Before Christ came, you had to keep following. You had to keep believing. After Christ came, you got to keep following. You got to keep believing. Well then, why did he come? So that being the case, that being the case, I don't see, there's nowhere in here where it tells us that they have, that this is conditional, which is what Dr. Brown says. I want to read someone, this was sent to me interestingly enough by someone who is not a fan of Corey Miner, but what they received and what I received, what I got was Robert Gagnon's response to my statement. And I want you to notice, I want you to listen to how he words this. Notice how much or if he deals with verse 28, he doesn't. I'll put it on the screens if you guys can see this, I put this, I copy and paste it to my notes and then try to make some new guys to see. But he says, this is Robert Gagnon's response. He says, who may plus a subjunctive equals emphatic negation? Certainly, surely, indeed not. But that says nothing about one saved, always saved. So his point is to eliminate one saved, always saved. Then he says, once saved, I mean the key question is who are the sheep? I don't even have, now honestly I have a problem with what he just said, but I don't have a problem with this part. Who are the sheep? Verse 27 is clear, is it? Verse 28 does not apply to those who stop following Jesus. Now what he's doing is he's giving an interpretation, which is fine if it's true, but it's not. He's like everyone else. He does not deal with verse 28. He does not deal with verse 28. He says, the key is verse 27. Well, again, verse 28 says literally nullifies the possibility of future loss. Again, that's what the rule states. It didn't happen necessarily being applied to salvation, but in this case, what is being negatized? What is being negatized? The loss of salvation. Now, I want you guys whether you agree or disagree to understand this rule, to understand what's being stated. We don't want to be the kind of people whether you agree or disagree with me or not. You don't want to be the kind of person that wants to give a heart knowledge and emotional response. You want to be able to thoroughly and thoughtfully go through this. What does the rule say? And then apply it. Don't be the childish person. Let me just be blunt here. Don't be the childish person and say that let's ignore the rule. The rule, who cares about the rule? Well, people speak with these rules in mind. The childish person will says, I don't care what this math rule says. I think one plus two equals seven. Well, no, there's a rule here. I don't care what the rules say. Your quadratic equation doesn't make sense. So I'm not going to use it. That's not how this works. This is a rule, guys. Just like, and we'll use this rule later, just like if I am the subject and I perform, I actively do something, meaning I use an active verb that is performed on a direct object. And then I also bring in an indirect object to tell us where this direct object either is what's happening to the direct object or where the direct object is going. There's rules to English, just like there's rules to Spanish, French, and Greek as well, even Koine Greek. So we have to observe the rule. You don't have to like it. Who cares if you like it or not? That doesn't mean anything. If the rule was otherwise, well, then guess what? We've got to go whichever way the rule states. That's just how it is. That's just how it is. If you have a problem with the rules, well, then fine. Fine, take your Bible and put it somewhere else because you don't care about what it says. If you're going to say, well, this is what I think it is without giving the basis to it, well then, so now you become the arbiter of truth. So now, he says the subjunctive plus the, let me put it back on the screen, plus the subjunctive equals an emphatic negation, certainly surely indeed not, but that says nothing about one saved, always saved. He has missed the rule. Let me put the rule back up. Okay, that's what I want to do. And I don't mind entertaining even the people in chat. Julian, need you to pay attention. Young fella, pay attention. We are not everywhere else. We're not in first John, we are everywhere but that. We are in John 10, 27 and 28 right now. Follow this rule because Julian or anyone else, if what I'm saying is correct, then you've got to apply that with other passages. If we got one passage that says it's impossible to lose your salvation and then another passage says that no, it's possible to lose your salvation, then what do we have? Ladies and gentlemen, we have a contradiction. So we don't believe that. And so this is coming out of Jesus' mouth. Let's see what he's saying. That's all I'm saying. Are there responses to the other passages that people bring up? Sure, we've covered those. Interestingly enough, I keep saying it. We cover the other passages, but no one ever deals with this passage. And even in this, they're not dealing with 28 because what does he say in his response? He says he wants to go to verse 27. He wants to go to verse 27. But notice what he says. It equals in fact negation, certainly, surely, indeed not, but that says nothing about one saved, always saved. What does the rules say? The rules say it negates the possibility. Put that on the screen because I just don't want it. Again, I want you all to be doubly sure of what I'm saying. Ume rules out even the idea. Ume, in this case, Apalanti rules out the idea as being a possibility. What idea? Ume rules out the idea of perishing to be a possibility even in the future. So what, according to this rule, let me just ask anyone if they're disagreeing. I wanna go slow. According to this rule, the possibility of perishing now or in the future is eliminated. Does anybody disagree with this rule? If so, why? Well, because of this over, no, this is the rule and this is the passage that it's applied to. DEFID says there is nothing conditional about in John 10, 27 exactly. There is not. Now, how do you get around that? How do the, I'll give them, yeah, they're Greek scholars. I'll give them that, especially, and Robert Schenke, he has, he's written on this, but even in writing on John 10, 28, what does he, what do you all think that Robert Schenke, I'm sorry, in his writings on, because he all, because Dr. Brown also referenced his book, Life and the Son, what do you think he focuses on in dealing with John 10, 28? Not verse 28. He doesn't deal with, he deals with 10, 28 a little bit, but his focus is not there. His focus is 10, 27, and what he assumes to be a condition. So you all forgive me, but this is a little bit of reading here, but I wanna put it on here so you guys see, I don't, we don't have the benefit of me being able to debate him because when he's dead, so there goes that. So let's put it on the screen. Thank you. I'm sorry, in dealing with verse 28, he says, thank God for such a precious promise from our savior. Our quotation of his promises, however, was incomplete. Look what he says. Unfortunately, thus it is usually quoted and many seeing hardly conscious of the fact that this is not the whole of the Lord's statement. We must not overlook verse 27. See, they wanna run to verse 27, which is fine. I don't have a problem with verse 27, but implicit in 28, there's this rule that states that whatever you think verse 27 is, which by the way, the rule that we see eliminates what he thinks verse 27 is saying. I'll get there in a second, which is an integral part of the statement and quite essential. It sets forth the specific condition governing our savior's promise. No, it does not. I wish he were a Greek grammarian because he would have to tell us and then could tell us where is this condition found in verse 27. He's gonna write about it, so let's just see, let's put it to the test. He says, Jesus said, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and I give them, give them to them eternal life. All the verbs, listen to this guys, all the verbs, all the verbs thus far are present indicative. The most constant characteristic of a Greek present indicative is that it denotes action in progress. While the present indicative does not invariably denote progressive action, it generally does, Robertson says, a durative sense does not monopolize the present tense. In other words, it's because it's durative, meaning it's continuing, doesn't mean that it's always that way, though it more frequently denotes linear action. The verb and the context must decide, here we go. So the context, if the verbs aren't explicit, the context is gonna tell us what's being stated. Well, according to who? That's the problem with when we wanna let context determine it because he's gonna tell us what the context is. Look what he says, the action art of the verb in question is durative rather than punctilier. Now, I don't even have a problem with that. I'll tell you why, because this is why, thank you, Darrell, by the way. And layman, layman is up on the languages. So layman, tell me if you follow what I'm saying as well. As a matter of fact, he is going to prove a point that I'm always harping on in just a little bit. Darrell Garner, I'm getting excited right here. Let me drink out of my Coke cup for a second. I'm getting excited. Never would've thought that this would do, Greek would do this for me, or Hebrew, but the Bible does. But listen to this, listen to this. Going back to what he's saying, he says the action art of the verb in question is durative rather than punctilier, or punctilier, however you wanna pronounce it. And certainly the context, compared with verses two through five and 14, ascribe progressive action to the present indicative under construction. Couple of things, couple of things. Thank you. You know what, I appreciate that. I appreciate that, sir. He said, I thought Corey did an overall good job. Yeah, Rick had a four hour review, I'm kidding. No, thank you, I appreciate that though. For my first and last formal debate, I just don't get it. I just don't get it. Why anyone would ever want to agree to those sort of debates? It's like you're boxed in, but that's fine. Won't happen again. But anyway, let me explain to you guys what action art is. And I copied in pieces from, let me see if this helps you. Action art shows a kind of action. So when you hear a verb, doesn't mean that the verb means this all the time. Durative, which means it's continual. Punctular or a state of completion. Durative indicates an ongoing action. Like this word, blepo, which means I am seeing. Now, it doesn't convey aspect all the time, but I'll leave that alone for now. Punctular indicates an action occurring at a certain point. In this case, editaxa, which is I taught. State of completion indicates a completed action, which is where we get like these perfect tenses in Greek. He has been raised and the act of resurrection is completed. Now, his point is that this durative sense, this continuous sense in hearing in John 10, 27, means that you have to keep hearing. Let me put it on the screen. I hope I'm not losing you guys. If I'm losing you guys, please raise your hands and say, hey, Corey, what in the world do you just say it? I don't know what that meant. In verse 10, in verse 27, he says, my sheep hear my voice. This word right here is, no, I haven't, layman. Akkousen, this is a present act of indicative. This is, as his point is, and I agree, I agree that it is durative, it is continuous. However, he takes it as because it's continuous means that is a condition. No, that is a condition that must be met in order to be a sheep. The reason why we know because he says context matters that it's not a condition in order to be a sheep, Jesus just tells those who are not his sheep that you're not my sheep. He didn't say not because, he says, verse 26, but you don't believe because you are not my sheep. If this were conditional, he would have said you're not my sheep because you don't believe. Do y'all see the difference? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, yes I do, yes I do, yes I do, layman, I do have it, matter of fact I do have it. I think I even quoted it the other night. But you do not believe because you are my sheep. Jesus could have easily have stayed. He easily could have said, but you're not my sheep because you're not believing. Let me slow down, do you all understand the difference? To say you are not my sheep because you don't believe is different than saying you don't believe because you're not my sheep. Does anybody get that? The reason why they don't believe, the reason why they don't believe is because they're not his sheep. He could have said, and according to others, should have said you're not my sheep because you don't believe. Which meant that all we gotta do is believe. All we gotta do is just believe. That's not what they're saying. That's the problem with their argument. Their argument is I don't wanna be mean, I don't wanna be rude, but doggone it, which is why, listen, I got my comfortable shirt on. I started to put on a regular shirt or a smart Christian shirt. Nope, I'm in my comfortable shirt. Cause I wanna be comfortable when I say this. That's a stupid argument, it really is. It really, I'm sorry, with all due respect, it makes absolutely no sense in what Jesus is trying to say here. Because you're saying that's the condition, but he could have literally said this to them. Oh, by the way, let's go back a little further. Let's go to verse, let's go to his verse that he just pulled up, verse 14 through 16. He says, I am the good shepherd and I know my sheep. Now, this is also the present, active, and negative. Is there a condition in that? When Jesus says I know, there's no condition in that. Well, that would make any sense then, would it? My own, I know my own and my own know me. Genose Guson, again, this is a plural present, active, but still present, active, and negative. Present, active, and negative. Present, active, and negative. So guess what? This is what sheep are. I agree, layman, this is what my sheep know me. I know my, even though they've passed away, my mother and father have passed away. If you play a recording of them right now, I will perk up. I will perk up. Why? Because I know their voice. They're not my parents because I know their voice. I'm not their child because I know their voice, but because I'm their child, I know their voice. Do y'all see what I'm saying? Sheep know his voice. Now, look what he says. Even as the father knows me and I know the father. As he said, I have to, in order for me to be known by the father, I have to know him. There's no condition being laid out here. He's just stating what he is. And I lay down my life for the sheep. Is that a condition? Y'all help me out. As a matter of fact, let me get out. Where are my Calvinists in the audience at? Where are my Calvinists? Where are my free grace folks in now? Look, where are my folks who believe in turn? Did he just say, I lay down my life or is this a condition? Or is him stating this is what he does? This is you just stating what he does. This matter of fact, not only is this what he does, this is why he came. This is why he came. Are you with me? So let's go back to it. Look what he says. Jesus says, I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also. And look what he says. They will hear. Akususan. Now this is the pool. This is a future activity, meaning they will be hearing. They will. This is continuous. This is active indicative. So they will hear. So are we gonna have two different types of sheep? The Jewish sheep and the Gentile sheep. The Jewish sheep, they have to hear in order to be sheep, but the Gentile sheep, they will hear. Is that what we're saying? I mean, you're telling us to make this whole thing to read it in context and we are. We are. They just don't because they don't like, by the way, a life in the sun was specifically written, was specifically written to counter Calvinism. That's what that was written for. So you've got an idea in mind. Now let's make the idea work. So, says they will hear my voice and they will become one flock. So fine, let's just do this. I'm a Gentile sheep. If I am legitimately a sheep, if you Gentile sheep, sheepesses, plural sheepesses, because that's our Southern fried American way of putting it, sheepesses. If you sheepesses are actually true Gentile sheepesses, then what did he just say? Not a condition, but a statement of fact. You will hear. You will follow. And you will become one flock. So wait a second. That indicates that the Jewish sheepesses and the Gentile sheep are gonna have the same thing because we'll be one flock with one shepherd. I just, I don't know if he's getting it, but let's go back to his writing. This is a lot. Now he speaks about someone else. He says, Montgomery adopts a progressive form. I am giving, didn't mean reading my sheep, listen to my voice and I know them and they follow me. I am giving them eternal life. Now, layman Charles, he misses a huge point here. He, it's like he glosses over an important point here. He says, because he's bringing up what another scholar brings up. He says, my sheep listen to my voice and I know them and they follow me. I'm giving them eternal life. Her use of the word listen is noteworthy. The English word listen possesses a durative connotation that is lacking in the word here. Some verse may say hear, some verse may say listen. If you want to probably try the better way to kind of clarify, I don't have a problem with you putting out listen, my sheep listen, which means they are listening. I don't have a problem with that. I'm gonna tell you why I don't have a problem with that because he's actually proving the point. He's actually gonna knock, he's gonna, he's gonna knock out his own argument. He's gonna cut off his own toes in a second. He says, the English word listen possesses a durative connotation meaning progressive constantly that is lacking in the word here and the simple present form listen conveys a progressive sense. Numerous contemporary translators including Goodspeed, Moffitt, Weymouth, Williams, Verkul, and Knox have rendered a cousin as listen in John 10, 27. The cousin says imparting a progressive quality to Jesus' statement. Don't have a problem with that at all. I don't have a problem with that at all. But if you're gonna go to that part, if you're going to go to that, this is why it helps to have, again, I'm not a scholar as I've been told, not a scholar, I'm not a Greek Ramarian, fine. But I can still read this talk on thing. Let's see what it says. Tell me if you guys pick this up. He says, and I give them eternal life. Now his focus is, I guess he's saying I am giving them eternal life if you wanna take it that way. But notice what he says, my sheep hear my voice, I know them and they follow me and I give them eternal life to them and they will, never perish, no one will touch them out of my hand. I give to them, in this word, Zoe and Ionian, I give them, I give to them life into the ages. This is telling us where this life is going to go. Matter of fact, if we go to John 647, the Bible says that truly, truly I say to you that whoever is believing, he's gonna, now obviously this is clearly continuous because it's the present active participle. We'll deal with that in a second, but the person's believing, present tense has life into the ages. When do you have, here's my question to anyone, anyone in the chat that says that no, I don't believe in eternal security or wanna say but always say. Question, here's the question. When do you have eternal life? When do you have everlasting life? When do you have life into the ages? At what point do you have life into the ages? That's the question. At what point does a person have life into the ages? Eternal life, salvation, whatever you wanna call it. At what point do you have it? These rules matter. So at what point do you have it? And I don't, we're going there too. That promise, I mean that passage, we're going to Ephesians, we're going there. But at what point, especially those that will say that we candles are salvation, when do we get salvation? When do we have it? According to Jesus, he says, those that are believing, even however you wanna take it, however you wanna take it, if it's gotta be a right now belief or a always belief, there's only one way to take that verse in John 6.47. Truly truly I say to you that those who are believing the hapah, the pasapistuan, the ones that's believing, or if you wanna take this, whoever might be believing, oh, layman, we're going to John 5.24, because you ought to hear what he says on that. Whoever you are, raise your hand if you're believing. Raise your hand if you believe, if you have believed, if you believe being now, Jesus says you have it right now, atk, right now, present tense, you cannot get around that, you have it at this moment. But what do you have? Because you might wanna say that I could lose it, no, you have it at this moment and how long does it last according to the passage into the ages. You can't, because again, this is clearly continuing. This life into the ages, implicit in the two words, Zoe, Ionian implicit means you have it into the ages. Say that again, Robin. Robin Patrick says I ain't losing nothing. And Robin's not saying this based on Robin's own ability, you know? So let's go back to, I wanna read this because he's gonna deal with 2028 to some degree, but he deals with it by dealing with other passages. So let's go back to, he says true to his purpose in his expanded translation, Woost forcefully, now this guy disagrees with Gagnon. This person forcefully emphasizes the durative quality of the first three of the four present indicative of the sheep which are mine are in the habit of listening to my voice. And I know them by experience and they take the same road that I take with me and I give them eternal life. Unlike Montgomery, Woost does not give the progressive form of diddy me, but it is obvious that Christ's giving of eternal life to his sheep is commiserate with habitual listening and following. He's making it into a condition, but guess what? Guess what, hey, Minister folks, but guess what? I don't even have a problem with that. What do you mean, Corey? You mean tell me, do you think? So if someone says you have to keep following, you have to keep hearing, you have to keep listening, you have to keep believing in order to be safe. I don't have a problem with that at all. I don't have a problem with that one bit. Why? Because we will, we will, there's no way that you can't. I'll come back to that more in a second. I'm sorry, go back to what he said here. Unlike Montgomery, let's see, this is an essential truth affirmed many times in the New Testament, but a truth alas, which many somehow have failed to observe. No, sir, you have missed the boat on this. Now, here's what he goes to verse 28. He says, the use in verse 28 of the strong double negative, Ume, together with the phrase, ice-toned Ionia, perhaps best rendered, not at all forever, has doubtless led many to ignore the significant condition here and follow verse 27. No, sir, you have missed the boat because you don't know the rule. You missed the rule. We'll go back over the rule again because the most important part of the rule they keep forgetting. It's not just that not at all forever is how you would render that. No, it's best rendered as it is impossible to ever lose it under any circumstances. If I ask you guys a question, if there was a way, if you could write in Greek, that the possibility of you ever losing your salvation in the future is foreclosed, is done away with, if I showed you that there was a way to write it in Greek and I showed you that, what would you say? Because that's literally what 1028 says. That's what Jesus is saying. Let me go back to it again. This is the rule, guys, and still highlight it. Who may rules out even the idea as being a possibility? It is negatized, the most negatizing way to do something, to negatize it in the future. What does that mean? If you are a sheep today, the possibility of you ever losing it, of ever perishing is negatized. The future possibility of you ever perishing is negatized. What does that have to mean? That means if you're a sheep today, you're a sheep tomorrow. If you were, for some sort of reason, stop being a sheep, which we don't have any such thing, if you were to ever stop believing, stop following, well then that would negate what Jesus just said. The rule is that in the future forever, it's impossible. That's literally what the rule means. And so when they go back to this and they don't cite the rule correctly, they do a disservice. He says the use of verse 28 of the strong double negation, negative, who made together with the phrase, I used to know now has doubtless led many to ignore the significance of the condition. There is, you don't even have to worry about the condition. You don't even have to worry about the condition because verse 28 tells us whatever the conditions are, they will be met. It has to be, otherwise they will do what? They will walk away, they will stop hearing, they won't, but Jesus said they won't. I'm gonna prove that in a second because he's saying that this has to be continual. This has to be continual, this is the condition. Let's keep going. He says, many folks have ignored the significance of the condition here and follow, which is not a condition in verse 27, which governs the promise of not perishing forever, but precisely the same words, who may ace Tyroneon appears in the Lord's promise in John 8.51, where the condition governing the promise is especially obvious. Verily, very I say to you that if a man keeps my word, he shall never see death. Now let's go to John 8.51. This is why, this is to me, is pretty disingenuous. Let me just type it in here. I'll come back to it over here. Let's put it on the screen. John 8.51. This is a huge problem I have with what he just said. Truly, truly I say to you that if anyone keeps my words, he will never see death. Now in this case, do you all see the condition? Is there a condition here? Yes, there is a condition here. Ian, Ian Tase, if a certain person, if anyone keeps my words, he will never see death. Okay, the condition is put there. The condition is put there. I don't have a problem with that then. But we don't have a condition put in John 10.27. He also brings up, I think, John 8.12. Jesus again spoke to him, I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Now, what's noticed is he makes this out to be a condition. And it looks like it might be he who follows me, but since we're talking about the Greek, he who follows me is not there. This is Ha Akaluthon, that is the one that is following me, the following ones, with me, that person will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, peripatase, peripatase, they will never, ever, ever walk in the darkness. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. So we have the double, the delegation there, but there is no condition here. He is being disingenuous here. One case, verse 51 of John, there is a condition. The word Eon is there, if is there. If is literally there in the Greek and in English. If is not there in the English or in the Greek in verse 27, or in any other passages dealing with this in John 10. So he says, the necessity of following him in order to share in his life is vividly declared by the Savior. No, it's not, stop it. I am the light of the world. He that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the life, commenting on John 10, 27, 29. There is, again, no condition. Again, this is the reason why he wrote the book. The Reformed church, the Calvinistic bases on verse 28, the doctrine that the regenerate can never apostatize. Christ undoubtedly says that no power can snatch away from his sheep. But he furnishes also the mark of his sheep and only so for as a stipulation contained. There are no stipulations contained in verse 27 and 28 are fulfilled because that, well, no, that's not the case. By the way, their arguments do fall apart when they come across someone who believes the same thing, who's not a Calvinist. Thank God, you Calvinists, I wanna say, man, I'm so glad Cory's not a Calvinist. That way they can't hang that you Calvinist argument on him. Amen. Now, layman, this is his take on John 5, 24. I think it's horrible. I think it's horrible. Which is fine because neither one of us are grammarians. Neither one of us are scholars in that, right? But fine. Perhaps no verse has been more, by the way, hold on, before I go to 5, 24, before I go to 5, 24. Remember, he's making the point that these words convey a duetive sense. So let's go back to John 10 before we leave. Before we leave and go to John 5, 24. Speaking about him as a shepherd and they us or the Jews and then again us as the sheep, verse two, but he who enters by the door is a shepherd, that's him, of the sheep. To him, the doorkeeper opens and the sheep, that's us, the sheep hear his voice. Now, what does hear, what tense is this? This again is present, active and negative. So if we're gonna follow his logic and the same path, remember, he just said that this makes it out to be conditional. This present active indicative that was used in 27 and other verses means that this condition, where he's using the same present active indicative here, he says, and the sheep hear his voice. So do the sheep, if they hear his voice? No, that's not what he says. He didn't say the sheep if they hear his voice and if, when he calls him, then he'll leave them out. That's not what he says. He tells what the sheep will do. He says the sheep, they hear his voice and he calls them, that's also in the present active indicative. That's not conditioned there. His own sheep by name, he's calling his own sheep by name. He calls you Frank, you Bob, you Mary, you Sue by name. We talked about this a little bit before when we're talking about the end time stuff and about the Jewish wedding feast and how the father gives the bride to the son. But the bride, this virgin back in those days. Not so much today, but anyway, I digress. The virgin is waiting. What is the virgin waiting on? Well, the virgin is waiting on the father or one of his assistants to blow this trumpet to signify the wedding feast is about to take place. Well, what's happening in between the time of the patrol and the actual wedding? What's going to happen? Well, in most, not I shouldn't say mostly, but in many cases, especially then, the son is building a house onto the father's property or room onto the father's house. Does anybody understand where I'm going here? The son is building rooms, building houses, building dwellings for the bride that he's going to get. Now, this should make even more sense when Jesus makes the statement, in my father's house, there are many mantises or many rooms or many dwellings. What does Jesus say? Let's go and put on the screen real quick and we'll come back to John 10. He says, do not let your heart be troubled, but they've got to be troubled because I've got to keep believing I've got to keep and I don't know if I can. Jesus, it's all going in Jesus, I just don't know if I can. Jesus says, do not let your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe in me also. In my father's house are many mantis or dwellings, many places, many places. If it were not so, if it wasn't so, I would not have told you for I go to prepare a place for you. Here's in, if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself that where I am going there, you may be also. Now, why is that important? Because Jesus isn't calling sheep and then going somewhere to forget about them, not to come back and get them again. In my father's house are many dwellings, many mantis, many rooms would have you. I'm going to prepare a place for you. If I'm doing so on this theme of not wasting my time, Jesus isn't wasting his time. If I go to prepare a place that I'm coming back, for who? For you. Why would I go and prepare a place for you knowing full well that you're going to stop? You're going to relapse, you're going to leave. It makes Jesus out to be more like, if that's the problem, we fashioned a Jesus out to be someone like us. Someone who is kind of absent minded, who will forget things, who will lose stuff with Jesus. I had already said in John 6, all that the Father even continued with this wedding theme, all the Father brings to the bridegroom, the bride, all of us, he will not lose one. Going back to Tim, he says to him, I'm sorry, verse four, when he puts forth all his own, his own what? His own sheep. He goes ahead of them. None of this, none of this that I'm reading is conditional. This is just stating a fact. And the sheep follow him. And the sheep follow him. And we know this is not conditional. I think this chi, chi at the Prabhatel is indicative of this is a statement of fact. And the sheep of his, they are following him. Akaluthe. They are following this again, present active indicative. So this is what sheep are doing. The sheep are following him. But now, a stranger, they will not put a, well, I'll leave that alone. A stranger, they simply will not follow. A stranger, they simply will not follow. Why? Why don't they put, why don't they put a condition on this? Well, because they can't. He literally just said, a stranger, here's a word. Remember I said before, there's two ways to nullify something from ever happening. Umei and a subjunctor. But then Umei plus a future indicative, meaning it will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever happen in the future. What do we have here? We have that very same construct, Umei Akaluthe Susan. This is a future active indicative negated by Umei, which means it is impossible for this to happen in the future. This will not at all happen in the future. So what does he say? What will not ever happen in the future? What won't happen in the future is that the sheep, us, they, we simply will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever follow. Are you with me? How can David lose this? David didn't have what we have at the time. Follow the bouncing ball, Julie, you are trying, don't try to figure out a way out of this. Just listen. What does he say, Julian or anyone else, about sheep? He says a sheep, when we follow him, because we know his voice, but a stranger, a strange voice. What's a strange voice? Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, anything that takes us away from Jesus. This stranger's voice, he says we will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, follow that voice. So a person like Bart Ehrman, who at the time people thought that this guy was saved. And he knew his Greek, but he is an atheist. As a matter of fact, not only is he an atheist, he's an antagonist. But not only that, he is what we call an antichrist. Was Bart Ehrman who looked like a sheep, made the profession of faith? Was he ever a sheep? Is it possible that Bart Ehrman was ever a sheep? The answer is no. How do we know so? Because Jesus said, a stranger, they will never, ever, ever, ever follow. They will never, ever, ever, ever follow. But what does he also say? He also gives this right here, this word for flee, this is the word Fuego, Fuexantai, which is, look at the bottom, future middle indicative. But instead, what will they do? Will flee, we will flee from. So we will not hear ever. We'll never listen to them. We'll never be hearing to them. We will never be listening to this voice, but what we do, we will flee. So if we don't, and we lose our salvation because of that, that means Jesus lied. But he's not lying. Because they do not know the voice of the stranger. Now here's a condition. Here's a condition as to why, not even a condition. This is the reason why sheep would flee because they don't know his voice. They can't know his voice because he's not theirs. They will never listen to his voice. So the question is, did Jesus make, is Jesus's point taken? Sure. Is he given a condition? There's nowhere in chapter 10 that he's giving a condition upon becoming a sheep. He's stating what sheep are. And then he tells other people that you're not a sheep. But he wouldn't say so if there was a condition. He simply say, if you wanted to be a sheep, you would simply listen to me. You would simply follow. Now he does something also, I think really, really, I think just, just off when he goes to John 5, 24. And then we'll be closing soon. We'll close soon. He says in John 5, 24, he says, perhaps, let's put it on the screen, perhaps no verse has been more often cited in evidence by the advocates of the doctrine of unconditional security than has John 5, 24. Here's what it says. You all know it. Verily, Verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on them, on him that sent me hath, this should be a H, hath everlasting life and shall not come into kind of nation, but is passed from death unto life. When I read this, this is what I knew he wasn't a grammarian. Then I had to go find out his credentials to make sure. Please underscore the words, hath everlasting life. All right, let's go to it. Let's go find the words, hath everlasting life. Truly, truly I say unto you, he who hears my words and believes to him, hath sent me, hath everlasting life. Now, I want you all to know to something about this word, haths. This word, haths is the word ecchi, ecchi. If you simply look at the bottom of the screen, look at the bottom of the screen, it says this is a present active indicative to have. So, the one who believes, when does he have everlasting life or life into the ages? Right now, sir. Now, let's go back and listen to this argument. I think this argument that he gives, I think it's kind of funny. Please underscore the word hath everlasting life or hath everlasting life. Says the advocates of unconditional security, indeed. Please underscore also the words, he that heareth and he that believeth, for they denote the condition. No, they do not denote the condition, but you say so, fine. Fine. Let's just say they do denote the condition. They don't, but let's just say they do. Let's follow his logic. For they denote the condition governing the promise of everlasting life and deliverance from the condemnation of death. And the hearing and the believing of which Jesus spoke are not the act of a moment. The durative quality of hearing and believing by which me and share the eternal life of God through Christ is fully apparent in the translation of Young, who takes into account the durative quality of the present participle, acuón and pistuón, and submits the following starkly precise rendering. Verily, look what he writes it. Verily, verily, I say to you, he who is hearing my word and is believing, no, that's not how you render that, but okay, fine. He is believing in his hearing, him who sent me half life, age, during, and to judgment, he doth not come, but half past out of death to life. We got a major problem with this rendering, which is all over the place. Many have laid much emphasis, and I'll come back to this. Let me just go ahead and read this and get this out of the way. Many have laid much emphasis on the words shall not come into condemnation. Charles, you're still there? Are you still there, Charles? Charles Jenin. Layman's Seminar, are you still there? This is funny. I think this is funny, this is just me. Many have laid much emphasis on the words shall not come into condemnation, but the Greek text read, ericotide, which is president indicative, rather than a future, and accurate translation must retain present tense as the majority of translations have done. It is true that the present tense may serve the function of the future tense. Obviously any coming into judgment must necessarily be future as relate to the present moment, but the use of the present tense, here it is, rather than the future refuse the emphasis which many have placed upon the words as they appear in the authorized version. Now this is a lot, but guys, hang on with me. And also the renderings which a few translators have arbitrarily adopted. Let's move past this. The point of Jesus' statement is that, on the basis of their present faith, all who hear and believe are delivered from present condemnation, occasioned by unbelief, and stand past Medipa Bacon and stand, they pass out of a spiritual death to life. He says that all who hear and believe are delivered from a present condemnation. What in the world are you talking about? I know you're dead. I know you've passed away and gone to heaven and so forth. What present condemnation are you talking about? This is, I can't tell you how goofy this is. This is really just, I'll get to the passage in a second. Contrary to the assumption of many, John 5.24 does not present a privileged position which one attained is forever revocable. Quite the contrary, our Savior's words depict a privileged position directly governed by the specific condition of habitually hearing and believing. In other words, you're in this position if you habitually hear and habitually believe. Jesus declares that the happy circumstances of deliverance from present condemnation, what present condemnation still, but anyway, and of standing past out of death into life, so what death will we pass from? What he's saying is the death that we pass from, we pass from that just for the time being, but you haven't really passed it. You've passed it, but it's still there. You can pass it for now, but they end up going through it again. He says it is only on the basis of present hearing and believing that one shares eternal life of God and enjoys deliverance from present condemnation and spiritual death. What's, all for declares the pistol on believing and the Eche having everlasting life are commiserate with faith. With the faith is the position of eternal life is and when the one remits, the other is forfeited. No, it's not. No, no, no, no, no, I, I, you know what I wish I had? I wish I had an Afro, I wish I had, I wish I had, I wish I had dreads. I wish I had a Jerry curl. I wish I had some ways. I wish I had, I wish I had something. I pulled my hair out. I would pull my hair out. This is, ah, this is, but let's go back to it more. Woose translation 524, except, you know, I don't even know if I want to read that because he's giving the, he's giving the reverse to this. Let's see, let's go to what he finishes saying. He says, in its most frequent use, the present indicative represents an action as standing at the time of speaking, being complete. The reference of the tense is thus double. It implies a past action and firms and existing result. Let me just, let me just stop. Let me just stop. You know why? I'm gonna rub my head real fast and just get some sparks flying, get some hair growing just so I can pull it out. Just so I can pull it out. Let's go to John 524. Let's go, yeah, yeah, let's go to 524. Let's just, this is funny. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears, now again, oh, hold on, how did he put this? Let me read this again, what he says. How did he write this? He says the way it should be rendered. Let me find it. How he, I'm trying to find, again, I'm looking on this screen where he mentioned this is the better way to render it. If I gotta find it, I've gotta find it because this doesn't, let me just count five seconds. If I don't find it in five seconds, I'm moving on. I'm moving on, I can't, I can't, I know I just read it. It's right here somewhere. Okay, he says that most truly, I say to you, I am saying to you, he who habitually hears my words and is believing. Though, okay, yeah. And who is habitually hearing and is believing the one who sent me has life. Okay, so we go back to here. It doesn't say the one who is believing. He just says the believing one, these are what they do. This is the present active participle. He says, truly, I say to you that the one who hears, well, what it is, is the aku'on. This is, this is the hearing ones. The ones that are hearing. Hearing. So if you are hearing, now let's just say even if it were conditional, if you are hearing and if you are believing, when? Well, at that moment, what do you have? You have life. When do you have it? Right now. Right now. You have it because the word is okay. You have it right now. Now there's a statement that he makes, which I am saying right now. Which I am so happy he makes this statement. I am, let me find this, this thing that he makes. This is where, okay, here it is. Where'd I stop it? Contrary to translations of some and the opinions of many, the New Testament affirms that eternal life in Christ is our present possession, only on the condition of present living faith, rather than as the irrevocable consequences of moments, of moments act of faith sometimes in the past. Consider John 1-12, but as many received him to them, he gave the power to become sons of God. It is significant that in the Greek text, three successive heiress are followed, not by an heiress participle, but by a present participle. Robertson quotes, wrote us as pointing out that Greek is an heiress loving language, which it is, especially the corny of the New Testament. Here it is, he is getting ready to cut his toes off. It is therefore reasonable to assume that when the New Testament writer adopts a more precise tense instead of the customary indefinite heiress, he does so for precision and emphasis. Here's what he says, since the New Testament writers love to use the heiress tense, the heiress tense guys is the past tense. Since they love to use the past tense, the heiress tense, then when they flip to a different tense, they then must be noted because they're doing so for emphasis. Here's where he cuts his foot off, because I agree. What does God describe us as? What does God describe a Christian, what are we as Christians described as? Another way of putting it, how do we know, how do you know you are a Christian? How do you know that person's Christian? How do we know a person is a Christian? How do we know that someone is not a Christian? Because that Christian is believing, he's following, he's abiding. The non-Christian is not believing, is not following, is sinning. Why am I using these words? I'm using words that have the ing at the end, why? Because that is the tense of choice amongst New Testament writers, specifically Jesus when describing a Christian. When describing a Christian, Christians are described as having this ing attached to it, as believing, as following, as hearing, as abiding or remaining, as overcoming. That's what Christians are described as. What are non-Christians, which sinners? Is there anywhere in the Bible where a Christian is called a sinner? No, but what they are described as is someone who is doing these other things, not believing, not following, sinning. Are you with me? Now, Jesus, follow me and I'm almost ready to get me an organ, because I'm holding myself back on preaching this. Who calls us believing? Very famous passage, John 3.16, We keep using this. You guys wanna chat, we'll play around with it. The pistuan, which is what? The believing one is the one who's believing, believing. You just told us that when the writers wants to give us this shift from the heiress, they do so for a reason. What they do so for a reason, the reason is to give emphasis of what they are. In this case, what a sheep are, what Christians are, believing. Who is the one that says that we are believing? Who's the one that gives us this present active indicative? Who's the one that says that we are in a state of continual believing? The one person who knows the beginning and the end, the one person who's at the end waiting on your believing tail, if you indeed are believing. That is, if you are believing. That's why we've got these warning passages. He's the one that called you believing. Jesus is the one, God is the one that's causing you believing, calls us to be believing. God is the one, the Bible is the one that says that we are hearing, that we are following. Matter of fact, the Bible is the one that says that we will be hearing, that we will be following, we will be, God is the one that does those things. Not us. That's how he did. The one who was at the end waiting, you know that very same one who said, I'm going to a place to prepare for you. Why is he going to prepare a place for you? And why is he coming back for you? Cause he knows you will keep being the believing ones. You will keep believing. You will keep following. Oh, by the way, what causes you to be believing? What causes you to be following? Who does that? What is it? By the way, I didn't come up with this. God did. So let's go to Ephesians. I said we're going to go there. Let's go to Ephesians to find out if we are going to always be believing. Remember, what does the Bible says? In Ephesians 1, this is why they call me Calvinist. Don't care. This is what the word says. So Calvinist or not. I'm not a Calvinist, but boy, I agree with the Calvinist or I should say the Calvinist, maybe agree with me. How about that? Or no, me and the Calvinist, all of us, we agree with the text even better. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, some young lady, what did she say? I caught a glimpse of that. I saw dead something. What did she say? Let me scroll up here. She says, Corey is debating a dead man's Greek understanding. No, it's not a dead man's Greek understanding, Missy. I'm debating everyone else's flawed, faulty understanding. A live scholar told me to go look at their, one of them's live, one of them's dead, to go look at their writings. That's what we're doing. I think you don't like it though. I think you don't like it because the people that you guys who referred me to go to, they're not looking. I mean, they're not doing what you said they would do. So who, because again, the condition is as long as we are, what, in Christ, as long as we are in Christ, then what? As long as we're in Christ, we're okay. Will we stay in Christ? Well, look what he says. Blessed be the God and our Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. He's blessed us with every spiritual blessing except for the spiritual blessing, which is eternal security, which is salvation. He blessed with everything else, but he didn't bless us with that. Make that make sense. But then he says, just as he chose, just as he chose, this is heiress past tense, middle. So he chose us for himself. He's the one that chose us, chose us for his purpose. He chose us, how so? Chose us in him. Exe laxatah, heimas, this heimas is the direct object. He chose us in him. Will we be in him? Well, according to Paul, Paul doesn't know what he's talking about, I guess, but he says he chose us in him. So guess where we will be. He chose us in him. He chose us in him. And oh, by the way, when did he choose us in him? Pro catabales, which is before the foundation, before there was a world, before the rock was there, before there was water, before he said, let there be, he chose us. You mean to tell me he chose us to be in him and then we will no longer be in him? He chose us, but then look what he chose to do. He chose us that we would be holy and blameless before him. In love, what did he do to us? Sheep assist. He predestined us to adoption as sons. So he made a son, he adopted us as son, predestined to be sons to himself according to the kind intentions of his will. And then we can go on and say, by the way, we in him, we have redemption. This word, apolotrosin is kind of a supersized way of redemption. And since you wanna say it is, as they wanted to call it, excuse me, we have this redemption. I'm sorry, let me just go. We have this redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses according to this. So we have been forgiven, we have this redemption, which he lavished on us, which he lavished on us, heiress, act as though in the past, he lavished on us in all wisdom. Now let's drop down, let's drop down just a little bit. He says, in verse, what verse is this? In verse 11. In him, also we have obtained, excuse me, we have obtained. Also we have obtained. This is a plural heiress passive and negative. So it was done to us in the past. We've obtained an inheritance. We as sheep have obtained a heiress. We've been given an inheritance. Why? Because we have been predestined. This is also, this is heiress passive participle. So when the passage was done to us, it was done to us. He predestined us guys according to his purpose, not just some willy-nilly arbitrary way that some folks like to say, no, because he didn't tell you why. I think he actually did though. According to his will or his purpose, who works all things. He's the one that works all these things after the counsel of his will. So the question is, will a Christian stay a Christian? If they're a Christian, they will be a Christian always after the counsel of his will to that end, that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of his glory. Then he says, listen to this, in him, you, that's us, us sheep, he says after listening, because the question is, will we be listening? Yeah, so we will be listening to the message of truth after we have been listening. So fine, we have been listening to the to his truth, but gospel of salvation, having also believed present active participle is important. What does he say? You were sealed, past tense. You were sealed, eras passive. It was done to you. You were sealed in him with the Holy spirit, who was given as a pledge, as our bond as a down payment deposit of our inheritance. What's this inheritance? We already talked about the inheritance. We are going to get, we are going to, look he says, we've already obtained this inheritance. Now we're going to get it eventually, which is us being with him. And in the meantime, we got this seal, this guarantee. Well, what does Romans eight say? There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. To those who are in, this is choice and Christo, which is those who are in. So if we're in, didn't say there's no combination of those who will stay in, but they're in. The implication is, we will be. Look what he says, for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death, no more death and what sin brings about. Let's move a little further. I'm not going to pull my hair out. I'm not going to make hair grow just so I can pull it out. I feel, I feel good now. I feel a little bit better. I feel a little bit better. So let's, let's, let's look at this. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us. That is to be revealed in us. It will be, it absolutely will be revealed in us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the Son of God for the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him was subjected in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery. Verse 22, for we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves having the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves grown with ourselves waiting eagerly for our adoption as Son. Now we've already, we already know it's coming. We already know it's coming. The redemption of our body for in hope we have been saved. Let me just read that. In hope we have, does your English version read the same way mine as the Wells of Greek? We have heiress passage. It happened in the past. It was done to us. We have been saved. Somebody get these other Greek scholars on the phone, please. But hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. In the same way the spirit also helps our witness. By the way, I don't know why people bring this up as tongues. This is clearly talked about our life in Christ salvation. So for anyway, for we do not know how to pray as we should but the spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches the heart knows what the mind of the spirit is because he intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love him. To those who are called according to his purpose for those whom he foreknew he did what? He predestined. What does the word predestined mean? There's actually a meaning to this word. I know some people think that we shouldn't worry about the languages and the words but what does this word mean? Predestined to determine in advance ahead of time to decide ahead of time. Not us, him. He also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son. Predestined us to be conformed. We are destined to be conformed to the image of his son. Even if you were to take it that predestined was basic off of someone of him knowing what we're gonna do which doesn't make any sense that he wouldn't use the word predestined but even if you took that tag once you're destined to become it by God you will become it. Become what? Conform to the image of his son so that he would be the first born among many brethren. That means it won't just be him, it'll be us also. He also called and these whom he called he also justified it. He's justified, guys, there's no more debt that's paid. Though these will be also justified also glorified what then shall we say if God is for us, who can be against us? He's more than the world against us, nothing can separate us, all these things. Guys, it just makes it again, just the reading. As it stands right now, I'm not gonna worry about it anymore because I'm just gonna come to the conclusion until someone, until someone can actually give it to me. Until someone can just, maybe when we just follow my lap maybe a Greek grammarian will, hey brother, I wanna talk to you about what you said, you were wrong, okay fine. Not somebody who graduated. Listen, I'm not pooping on their accolades, I'm not. But you graduated, you can read the Greek but grammar is not your strong suit. But the people who have this as their strong suit concur with what I'm saying or I just have to concur with what they're saying. Yeah, so far, so far, so far the text is undefeated. Brian, we've talked about it before that that 1028 text is the undefeated text. That's not the only undefeated text, but it's undefeated. That awful rendering or translation of 524 is wrong. Again, Christians, let me just say it, be clear. Christians have to believe. Christians must continue believing. Christians must continue following. Christians must continue believing. None of us here disagree with that. The issue is will. We believe that God has caused it so that Christians will continue to follow. Christians will continue to believe which is why Jesus can make this statement. I will bring every last one that you gave that you God gave me. I will raise every last one of them up which is why Paul can make the statement. He who began a good work in you, he will complete it. He will complete it. Anyway, I guess one day I'll wait for someone to refute this but in the meantime, I've got some more snarkiness towards this loss of salvation because we got some promises that were made to us that if we lose our salvation that Jesus didn't keep. These are promises that Jesus literally made. And so my question to those folks who would disagree, my question to those folks who would disagree is especially those who may even understand Greek. If there is a way to write in the Greek that it is impossible to lose your salvation, how would you write it? Wouldn't you write it just like Jesus said it in John 10, 28 or in other passages? Wouldn't you write it just that way? I think you would. Also, if there are people who think they're Christians and they're not, and we all know that there are such people who think they're Christians who think they're saving, they're not. How would you warn them? Wouldn't you warn them exactly the way the Bible does it? Which means there's no reason for you to think that these are actual Christians, but anyway. So guys, thank you so much. I had to get that off my chest because I think it would be intellectually dishonest. I'm sorry. It would be dishonest of me to have received this information and then act like it doesn't exist as though I'm not addressing what was put out there by the scholars, by the scholars. They're scholars, but not Greek scholars. Just like a doctor, every doctor at the same doctor. Just like every lawyer at the same kind of lawyer. There are those that specialize in certain areas. And so that being the case guys, thank you so much. And I look forward to seeing you guys again. Be blessed.