 So the very last thing that I've decided to handle is interpretations of revelation. Now there were so many other scriptures and places that he uses in the Bible but you know, I've already spent so much time now working through all of some of these difficult passages. It's been getting very exhausting dealing with him emotionally. So I've decided I'm not just going to try and cover absolutely everything he says because I hope to get to a lot of those passages eventually anyway, you know, outside of dealing with him. So I'm going to bring this to a close by finally answering some of the stuff that he pulls out of revelation and then I think we can, it's fair to say I've done what I can for his sycophants and we can bring this reputation to a close. Okay. So his starting passage is in Revelation 22 where it talks about someone having his part taken out of the book of life. Okay. So then what you go, that's obviously one of their proof texts. What he goes on to explain is that that people who hold to eternal security will typically explain this by saying that everyone who, everyone starts out with their names written in the book of life from the foundation of the world and so the warning is only to unbelievers, not true believers, a true believer would never tamper with God's word and so Nick can never have his name blotted out and so that's that's typically the OSAS points that people will make to him. Where he attacks the logic of that is that from that perspective, from a logical perspective, can you even imagine walking up to somebody, whether it's a Hindu or a Jew or an atheist and saying, hey, do you know your name is written in the book of life? Okay, obviously we wouldn't go out and give the gospel in that kind of a way. So then it would seem non-sensical to interpret it that way. So then how he refutes that view is that you have Revelation 13.8 where it says whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lamb who was slain. Now, there's a bit of a problematic difference here because the King James actually puts the foundation of the world after the lamb who was slain. So then it's as if well the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world but that doesn't mean that the book was though. When I've looked it up, I think it's just a bit of a problematic ways to how you translate the Greek and which one it belongs to. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept that if you take it as even in the King James reading the book of life of the lamb who was slain. So the book of life belongs to the lamb and it was before the foundation of the world. And actually he will quote another scripture in later in Revelation that says the same thing as the ESV reading here anyway. Revelation 17.8 and the King James agrees with with the ESV here, okay? So in other words, there are names that have never been written in the book of life. And so what is argument point is that names are blotted out of the book of life though. Well, they must be written in and so that that equates with with somebody losing their salvation, okay? Now first of all, we're starting with a major problem here according to this very verse that's in discussion. Okay, because you see, he normally likes to quote the ESV. That's the Bible that he's quoted most of the time throughout all the videos that we watch. He almost always quotes that particular Bible, okay? Now what I find curious if he's so confident in the ESV is why for this particular verse that's about adding and removing from God's word, by the way, that he decided it would be more convenient to quote the King James Bible because a minute and forty-four in he even points out that other versions say that it's tree of life instead of book of life, okay? So immediately that we've got a problem because either the words of that original book should have said book of life or they should have said tree of life. It can't be both. So immediately we've got a problem here because one of those two lines of manuscripts, obviously the Bibles are just translating from the manuscripts, but one of those two different lines of manuscripts, they've taken away part of the book of this prophecy. They've changed the word book and replaced it with the word tree. So they've both added and removed from this book. So why is he then quoting the King James instead of just following the ESV? Because we've got two completely different readings. We have a problem already. So somebody's somebody's tampered with this book of prophecy already. So the fact that he's reading the King James version here, but then other times it's convenient for him to quote the ESV instead, which has completely different readings because they're from completely different lines of manuscripts. Well, that tells me that he's he's added and removed from the book of life himself anyway, because otherwise why would he need to change Bible here? For this exact verse being discussed? I mean, this is the worst verse in the entire Bible for you to decide that you're changing the Bible translation that you use the reading from. It's the worst verse to do it because you've literally exposed what this very verse is talking about right here. OK, so there you go, folks. I don't really know what else to tell you beyond that about that really. But let's let's deal with the issue. I'm just going to assume it says book of life because I read from the King James anyway. So I've I've got to answer it in light of the book of life. So there is a logical conundrum here, essentially. But also that there's also a serious misunderstanding that Epiucion has about how things before the foundation of the world actually works in eternity. OK, or from a God's perspective, if you like. So so we ask this question. If everybody was once written in the book of life, as many once saved always saved, as I suppose, does it really make sense to say that their names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world? I think in his Bible, it says has not been written or something to that effect. So the problem is, though, is that the way that he's interpreting it, if you say that the book of life names written and it only applies to people who have believed on to salvation specifically and therefore obviously why it's loseable. That does in itself present another logical issue. Now, this logical conundrum is somewhat outside the book of Revelation, but let me just bring it forward to you. So what about babies who die in utero or at birth? OK, now they haven't broken God's laws. The Bible, there's no explicit verse that says that babies go to heaven, but it is implicit. And one really good bit that you could turn to is Job 3 11 to 19, where Job is pretty much saying, I'm going to paraphrase. I can't remember the baiting, but where Job says it's better to have died in the womb or died at birth and he'd be in a better place where everything's just better than the world we live in now, essentially. So I'm sorry for paraphrasing that, but you know, you can go check that out for yourself. So they're not saved in the conventional sense. They haven't believed on the name under heaven whereby we must be saved, but they're not exactly guilty of the law either. OK, the law can't really condemn them because they haven't done a sin to violate the law. So then what category of in because you can't exactly say they're not written in at all if they have to be in this book. But then if they're in the book of life from the beginning, well, then we go back to the previous conundrum about names that weren't written. OK. So this is the key to understanding it. OK, again, get this into your heads because I've stressed this multiple times in this refutation. Now that just get this into your miserable mind that God knows the end from the beginning. If you just understand that everything makes sense again. OK. So whether a person's name is blotted out of the book of life or whether it was not written in the book of life. I'm going to submit to you that it's a difference without distinction because God already knows whether someone's name will be readable in the book of life or not in either case. All the way back since before the foundation of the world. So this is the key, the foundation of the world. OK, let me just get you some parallel verses about the foundation of the world. So Hebrews 4 3 for we which have believed to enter into rest, as he said, I have sworn in my wrath if they shall enter into my rest. Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. OK. First Peter 1 19 to 20. But with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish without spot who verily was ordained before the foundation of the world. But was manifest in these last times for you. OK. You've got Ephesians one four and five according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. That we should be holy and without blame before him in love having predestined us. So that that's just another synonym if you like is predestined. God's already foreseen all of this. He's already chosen the book of life has already been sorted from the foundation of the world or before even. Let's just look at Revelation 13 and 17 verses eight again. So in Revelation 13, well, it says in the King James Version, all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life. Now, the ESV was more like has not been written in the book of life or but in the King James, it's are not. OK. Now, if he wants to say that the ESV is a better translation, well, then why did he quote the King James in Revelation 22 than if the ESV is so wonderful? Revelation 17, eight, this is the past tense, though, and it's whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. OK, so these make it look like on the surface that their names were were never written, but it doesn't say never written, just were not written. OK. Even though when we look at these Revelation events, we typically think of future stuff, something that's going to happen in the future and times kind of stuff. The book of Revelation is still written predominantly in the past tense. So all of this stuff is being explained as if it had already happened because John is just explaining in the form of a vision that he gave. OK. So first of all, that's why it's in the past tense were not written because all the prophecy and all the revelation that John is getting is in the past tense. OK. And the way that he writes his book. So then if the book itself originates from the foundation of the world and a name was written in it, but then blotted out. Well, then, when the events of Revelation 13, 8 or 17, 8 occur, the name was not found written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. And when the judgment of Revelation 20, 15 occurs, the name was not found past tense written in the book of life. So if a name were ever written or it was blotted out since this book is from the foundation of the world, it makes absolutely no difference. God knows the end from the beginning. It already happened from the foundation of the world. Jesus knew from the beginning who believes not and who should betray him. OK. Osas wins again. So, you know, once again, he's wrong. It's so easy to explain this. If you could just if he could just grasp the eternal nature of God for one miserable day, it would all make perfect sense. But you see, he doesn't grasp eternal things. This idea that God is timeless and from the beginning, he just does not grasp that at all. He proves himself. He's so chronologically tied because he cannot think outside of this carnal world. He cannot think in eternal terms. About seven minutes in, he then starts to address this issue. Would a true believer ever tamper with God's word? And again, it's that same free free will boring argument that, you know, has no verse to back it up. It's just, you know, carnal reasoning that while we have free will, so, you know, you still have the free will to do all kinds of other things. Like, yeah, you have the free will that you might watch pornography or you might you might do this. So you have then have the free will to tamper with God's word. Again, it's the stupidest answer ever. Well, one of the aspects of a believer is believing that Jesus is the word, that Jesus has the words of eternal life. Like Peter said in John six, where would we go? Lord, you have the words of eternal life, right? Now, as we have seen from Astrodis in this refutation, the flesh, the sin that dwells in you, it wants to sin. OK, even if you're saved, it still wants to lust after women or it still wants the alcohol or it wants the carnal things of this world. But what sinful nature causes you to want to read books and then rewrite them for no apparent reason. OK, do you know someone with a strange addiction to completely rewriting books and changing random words? My guess is probably not. OK. So, yes, we may choose these things insofar as the flesh wants to do those things. That's not equatable with changing the words of God, though. OK, it just simply isn't. So why do people change the words of God? Well, because they want to promote false doctrine, such as the guy who wrote the passion translation. He wanted to put his N.A.R. crap into it or the watchtower produced their own translations. They could put Jehovah's Witness rubbish into it. Or perhaps they just want to redefine sin so that it's no longer saying because they don't like what God said, like the producers of the Queen James Bible. OK. So these are the kinds of people who would change the words of God. OK, there's a reason I'm a King James onlyist. OK, it's because I don't like it when Jesus said narrow is the way and someone goes and changes it to difficult is the way. OK. When the context proves it's narrow. So, you know, does that change the fact that I still have desire for other sins? Well, no, but I still wouldn't change this, though, folks. OK, I still I'm still happy with this the way that it is. And so it's just it's a complete straw man to even bring this up. It tries to sort of get around it by saying that the verse says every man or any man that does this as if like it could be you personally who does this. But again, how many people really change the words of the Bible and write their own Bible? OK. This is a very select group of people. OK. And I'd submit to you that he's one of them because he normally used the ESV, but he decided to use the King James for this particular reading so that it said Book of Life instead of Tree of Life. So, you know, he obviously doesn't stand on the ESV for this particular verse, does he? So, you know, he's someone who likes to pick and choose whatever translation of the day happens to suit him for whatever point he's making, just like his contradictory argument points. In fact, let me show you some examples here of where he actually does add words to the word of God. OK. So, you know, he wants to make a big show and dance about Revelation 22. He's one of the people that tamper with the words of God when he quotes it. So just just have a look at this. So he mentions this Revelation 3.5 and it's the one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments and I will never blot his name out of the Book of Life. I will confess his name. And so obviously the faithful own crowd, my types of people will usually use that versus proof that, you know, the same person, they'll never have their name blotted out of the Book of Life. OK. So he points out 1127 that that people say to him that this is actually a promise rather than a warning. And then one of the things that he points out is that multiple times in Revelation 2 and 3, when the letters have been written to all these churches, that Jesus says, I know your works, I know your works, I know your works. And so then he makes this about works. OK, because obviously most a lot of people will say, well, well, it's faith they overcome by faith. But Jesus keeps saying, I know your works. The problem is with the works thing is that Jesus is addressing churches of believers for a start. It's not like he's preaching the gospel to people. OK. You know, he wants to make it about the gospel. Jesus isn't preaching the gospel in Revelation 2 and 3. In Revelation, is it even written to tell you how to have eternal life? Jesus is preaching to write while writing to churches of established believers. OK, that's who he's addressing it to. So they're the churches with these works that they need to clean up this act and clean up that act for whatever reason. Now, when it says the one who conquers or in the King James, it reads he that overcomes because it's he that overcomes. It's just he whoever he is. It's not the church that's actually being written to specifically like the group of people. OK, see, whoever he is, he will overcome. You, the church, I know your works, the church. OK, so, you know, that that doesn't work at all the way he's trying to read that. Then he answers the faith people that treat this as a promise rather than warning and he says, but friends, that's not what this is saying. It's saying the one who and look what he says at 1238. He says conquers their sin. Now, again, it's the ESV. It's not the KJV. It doesn't matter at this point. You're looking at the same verse that I'm looking at. Where does it say their sin there? Is that what that verse says? No, he's just put those words in there. He can't just read it and then let's look at in the Bible as we can figure out how you conquer. He's just put this in. He's put that into the text when it isn't there. And it's the same with these repent of your sins, people. We've got verses that say, repent for the kingdom of God is at hand or repentance for the remission of sin. They make it say, repent of your sins to be saved. But that's not what those verses say. Those three words of your sins are not there. They make it say that. And so these are the people like him. Who are the ones adding and removing from Revelation according to Revelation to it doesn't say of their sin. That's not what that verse says. And you're even looking at it on the screen. It's bizarre how they just do that and just think that nobody's going to catch them. And sometimes because like Jesus is saying, I know your works to these churches, sometimes as well, they take the word works and they automatically assume that is turning from sin. But you know what? There are other kinds of works in the Bible besides turning from sin, like going out and doing this and going out and doing that and being full of this that has nothing to do with whether you've turned from sin anyway. So you can't just say, I know your works and there it is turning from sin. But at least at least by him saying that it proves that he has a workspace salvation. OK, it proves that turning from sin is your works. It's not your faith, but that's that's neither here or there right now. We then goes to try and justify it with Exodus 32 and Psalm 69, which they they don't say the Book of Life in the way that Revelation does. Moses says, please, if you will forgive this, and if not, please block me out of the book that you have written. And he doesn't say the Book of Life, but it seems to look like that at least. Well, in the Exodus example there, Moses says, if you will forgive their sin, please block. But if not, if not, please block me out of the book. Well, what sin has Moses done? Moses wasn't the one who sinned in this story, but he's saying, block me out of the book that you've written. But it's only those who sinned. And when it says sinned, it wasn't talking about alcohol or pornography. By the way, it was a false God. OK, it was bound down to a false God. And we have multiple verses in the Bible that talk about they entered into the Promised Land because of unbelief. And there's more I could say about that, but it's a whole other topic. I'm not going to get into it. And it quotes Psalm 69, 28. We get let them be blotted out of the Book of the Living. Let them not be enrolled among the righteous. And that that Psalm there is dealing with people who are full of iniquity. Like it says, add iniquity into their iniquity. So it's almost as if David is preying against salvation for this particular type of people. But again, here's the context that he's not given. OK. That the people in this particular Psalm are exceedingly wicked people. And it's actually prophetic about Jesus Christ. Because just a couple of verses before that, it says, for they persecute him who you have smitten. OK. So it's those who in the New Testament application, this is just an Old Testament for shadowing of it, but it's those who persecute Christ. OK. Well, why do they persecute Christ? Why do they, you know, why do they persecute the one that God has smitten because they reject Jesus Christ? So is it is it their sin itself or is it the unbelief? It's the unbelief. OK. The sin in these two verses. It's just an outward reflection of that unbelief. OK. So it's still the faith at the end of the day. It then goes on to quote some verses which are just completely and utterly irrelevant. I guess it's perhaps it's more relevant to the subject title, but nothing to do with the Lamb's Book of Life. So I'm not even going to address them because they're so irrelevant to the issue being discussed. And then this video just seems to end with just more Luke things that separate issue, really nothing to do with the Lamb's Book of Life. I guess he's just trying to quote my other things for losing salvation. So the question is, then, going back to Revelation 3, if I can find it in the timeline, who is either overcome? Now, it says Kong's in the ESV. I'm going to go with overcomes, because that's what the King James says. Who is the one that overcomes? OK, according to Revelation. Let's just have a look at where it appears in Revelation. Now, I know a person did address how some people will quote one John 4 as they overcame by faith, essentially. But I'm going to stick to Revelation. I'm going to let Revelation answer Revelation because it uses the word overcome plenty of times. OK, so here's where it's overcome. Obviously, there's different forms of that depending on the tense. So here it actually says the beast shall overcome and it's killed the saints. So, you know, you can't say to him that overcomes and it's all these mighty works because some of the saints are going to be overcome by the beast. OK, they're not going to overcome physical tribulation, but they are going to overcome in the life eternal. OK. And again, it was given on to him to make a war with the saints to overcome them. So the beast overcame the saints. So don't just take overcome and make a well, turn from your sins because the saints in this one, they were the ones overcome. They were not doing the ones overcoming. It's just in a different context. OK. So then there's make war with the lamb and the lamb shall overcome them. So again, a different context. You've then got overcomer thought overcomes it in modern English. So obviously, this is where Revelation two and three comes out most often. So to him that overcomes, I will give to eat the tree of life. Well, it doesn't really explain how he overcomes. It's just to him that overcomes. Again, Revelation two, he that overcomes shall not be. Well, again, it doesn't say how he overcomes. It just says that he overcomes whoever he is to him that overcomes. Again, doesn't say how it's just whoever he is. That's what will happen. And again and again and again. And it's just to either overcomes to either overcomes. But none of these verses are telling you exactly how he overcomes. OK, they're just not telling you that there. Well, here is the key. So where it's overcame past tense, you've got to him that overcomes. I will grant him even as I also OK, well, that's Jesus overcoming. But look what it says in Revelation 12, 11, and they overcame him. Well, how did they do it? Well, they turned from all of their sins. No, it says by the blood of the lamb, the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. The blood of the lamb is how they overcame according to Revelation itself. We don't have to go to some completely irrelevant verses in Luke to actually explain this. Of course, he didn't seem to want to mention that in his video. Did he not really relevant to him, is it, I suppose? So there's now three more quick things that I want to tackle in Revelation and then I can finally bring this refutation to a close. OK. So in this bit, we're going to deal with how will Christians be judged and then we'll deal with lukewarm Christians and one last point that he makes about the Tree of Life. So how will Christians be judged? And he uses Revelation 2012 to 15 to say that we as Christians, we can't use the faith alone or the faith that works card because according to these verses, we will be judged by our works, even as Christians. OK, so you will be judged for your sins, this, that and the other, even as a supposed believer. Honestly, when we actually look at these verses, it's just going to be it's almost hilarious that he reads that and even thinks it's almost embarrassing. This man is an embarrassment to the cause of Christ. OK. Let's just have a look at it. I'm going to switch to the King James. Let's have a look at it. So then Revelation 20 from verse 11 to 15. And I saw a great white throne and him that sat on it from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away and there was found no place for them. OK. And I saw and here's the key word here, the dead. OK. Small and great. Stand before God and the books. Now just point to this. It's plural books there were opened and watch this. Another book was opened. OK. So let's highlight that in a different colour. So we've got the books and another book was opened. What is that other book that was opened? We'll keep reading, which is the book of life. Now then and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books. So was it they were judged out of the book of life or the books plural? Well, it's these plural books right here, the books plural. OK, according to their works. OK. So they're judged by their works out of those plural books. And the sea gave up the dead and there's that key word again. The dead. OK, which were in it. And well, what happened? Well, death and hell delivered up the dead. OK, which were in them. And they were judged every man according to their works, folks. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. And this is the second death. So these are the people that are being judged. The people that are in hell, death and hell. This is the first hell, the lower hell cast into the lake of fire out of hell. That's the second death. Now, whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. So what's going on here? The dead, death and hell delivered up the dead. They were judged according to their works and they were not found written in the book of life. So according to this passage, who is judged according to their works? Is it those who were found in the book of life or is it those that were found in the books plural according to their works? It's the dead, those in hell. They were judged by the books according to their works. Those who were in the book of life. Well, it doesn't say how the book of life people were judged. It's just that those who were not found in the book of life, they were the ones cast into the lake of fire. So whoever was found in the book of life, they were not cast into the lake of fire. And it's specifically the dead. It's not saved people. And by the way, if you read in the whole of Revelation, God's people have already been resurrected by this point. They've already had the marriage supper with the lamb. OK. They are not the dead. They are not being given up by death and hell and then cast into the lake of fire. Folks, it's the unsaved, the dead that are judged according to their works, according to this passage. Not the people who were in the book of life. And so it's just utterly ridiculous and just flat out embarrassing that he would read that and think, well, Christians are going to be judged by their works. It's just he's ridiculous. He's ridiculous. How does he just how does he look at himself in a mirror and take himself seriously? Honestly. So that's that point put to bed for you. Let's get on to the next point. The next one, and although I've left this to the end, it really ought to have perhaps been more of a beginning thing because this is another one of the most abused passages in the Bible by conditional security guards. But this is the one where Jesus says to the church at Laodicea, I know your works, you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you are either called or hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth or spit you out of my mouth as revelation. So that's one of their classic you can lose your salvation passages. OK, so then it goes into loads of spiel about how people would tell him. Well, it just refers to false converts or it's just about, you know, two rivers of different temperatures that met up somewhere. Or it's it's unbelievers that that Jesus is going to spit out. Well, that's completely ridiculous to to read it that way, of course. And so on and so forth. And then again, he has to go to a passage that's not really relevant to the issue being discussed, to be honest. So then he's talking about these people, their love, these lukewarm people, their love is growing cold, even though Jesus says I would that you were called or hot. That's strange. And then it goes on to say who am I love, I reprove. And so he's talking about being on fire for the Lord, if we're not on fire for the Lord, you know, that therein lies the problem. And so then a little while later, after quoting a load of irrelevant waffle, about seven minutes, 14 in, you know, again, Jesus is going to spew out the lukewarm. And it's, guys, if you're not striving to enter the kingdom of God, so he interprets those who are lukewarm as those who aren't trying hard enough to get in. Basically. OK. Now, a lot of Christians misunderstand what it means to be lukewarm. And so they often imagine it as one foot in, one foot out. Like you've got a hot foot, you've got a cold foot. Now, Jesus wants to be part or he wants to be cold, but you've got like a hot foot and a cold foot. So it's like one foot in Christianity, one foot out. That's how a lot of people read that. But that doesn't even make sense with the way that Jesus actually explains it. So here it is from Revelation 3, 14 to 22. So as far as I'm aware, I looked in a concordance and this was the only mention of lukewarm in the Bible. So this is the only part of the Bible that that defines what it means. And again, as I say, Christians think it means one foot in and one foot out, which is not what it means really. So he says onto them, onto the angel of the Church of Laodicean. So immediately here we are writing to here. We're writing to the Church of the Laodiceans. Now, again, a PCM wants to constantly make this about you. You've not got to be lukewarm. You've got to be walking this way. You've got to be doing this, but we're not writing to one individual person. OK. We're writing to a church and this is all poetic language here. OK, because it's not literally talking about somebody's body temperature. OK. So first and foremost, you know, what's the deal with these lukewarm Christians? There is no such thing as an individual lukewarm Christian. OK. There are lukewarm churches, right? Plenty of them, but there are lukewarm churches. OK. There's no such thing as a lukewarm individual person. This is addressed to a church. It's a lukewarm church. A church is a congregation of people. OK. They don't all collectively lose their salvation because there's like some, you know, members in them that aren't trying quite hard enough and then it affects everybody else. That's ridiculous. OK. It's a lukewarm church. So immediately therein lies the problem with the conditional secure retards, again, is that they just completely misapply it. But there you go. So I know your works. Now, why is he talking about their works? Well, this is not written to unbelievers to tell them how to be saved. Jesus is addressing established churches of believers. OK. These are his believers. Simple as that. OK. So I know your works and what does he say? Well, you are neither cold nor hot. And it's not while I wish you were fully hot. You know, I wish you were on fire for the Lord. He says, I would that you were cold or hot. Now, people often read colds as like, you know, they just completely cut off from Christ. But again, that's not even working with the analogy because the problem with these people is that the lukewarm. And so because they're neither cold nor hot, I will spew them out of my mouth. So if you were cold, it doesn't say that he would spew them out of his spewing them out for being lukewarm. OK. Now, what exactly does this mean? Well, again, you don't need to be an expert in water temperature to figure this out. OK. You go to most, well, restaurants or food takeaways like like McDonald's and Burger King. OK. You get your meal and you ask for a drink. Well, typically speaking, what drinks are an option? Well, you've got your hot drinks. Maybe you want a latte, a cappuccino, a cup of tea. OK. You've got your cold drinks. You've got your diet cola. You've got your phanta, whatever. OK, whatever they have, Pepsi, whatever. It doesn't matter. But there's hot drinks, which are heated with a boiler. And there's cold drinks that are refrigerated. And they ask you if you want ice in it or they put ice in it. OK. Why? Because human beings like hot drinks and human beings like cold drinks. OK. What we're not so much of a fan of is lukewarm drinks. OK. And that's why a lot of takeaways, restaurants or whatever, they don't typically serve room temperature drinks, unless maybe if you ask for one. OK. Now, I know maybe some I don't know some bars do, perhaps I don't know. But typically speaking, you go to a sandwich shop, you go to a fast food place, what are your options? Well, we've either got hot drinks, which have been heated deliberately, or we've got cold drinks that have been refrigerated deliberately. OK. So if you had room temperature water, it almost tastes funny because your taste is typically it doesn't really like normal water because normal temperature water is more likely to have bacteria in it or it's more likely to be dirty. And so naturally, our bodies have been designed to prefer cold water or hot water because it's more likely to be clean. Now, in the modern world, you know, fizzy drinks and flavoured drinks tend to override that natural sort of disgust at lukewarm water, obviously, because the flavour kind of overrides it. But but typically when water was your main drink for most people, that's the rules. OK. You know, it might be a bit different with wine, but with water. That's the rules. That's how it works. OK, most people don't like tepid water. They prefer a cold drink or they prefer a hot drink. OK, it's no accident. Now, what was the issue with the Laodicean Church? Why were they lukewarm? Well, you say I am rich, I am increased with goods and I have need of nothing. So that's what they say. But here's the problem that you are wretched and miserable and poor and naked and blind. So it's not you say I am on fire for the Lord, but you have got one foot in and one foot out. That's not what she says. And this is Jesus is putting this as the complete opposite of that. So they think they've got everything. They think, you know, they're a great church. They're rich. They've got goods and they don't need anything. OK. But it's a miserable poor blind church. It doesn't it doesn't matter that they've got richness. OK. Now, why would the hot cold lukewarm analogy apply in this context? Because here we've got two opposites, whereas here we've got three options. Right. Well, first of all, you can group those two together anyway, because again, we like either hot or cold drinks, so that there's still really two opposites. But even secular history, you just look up the Wikipedia entry for Laodicea and it will tell you about all the aqueducts that they had in place. So compared to some villages, and you know, bearing in mind, this was the ancient world, this was before water pumps and sewage treatment and all that kind of stuff. So because they had the luxury of aqueducts that a lot of places wouldn't have, they had quite a good supply of water. OK. But this water is exposed to the surface. It's in Turkey, probably quite a warm place. OK. The water would be quite not a hot temperature, but it would be a warm temperature. It wouldn't be cold. It wouldn't be from a well. It wouldn't be hot because it hasn't boiled. OK, it's just it's tepid lukewarm temperature. And now on the aqueduct, it does explain in this article about how it picks up like calcite and various other things, which you probably won't want to drink it if it's got some of that stuff in it. OK. So on the surface, it looks as if Laodicea is quite a wealthy city. They have an abundance of water in the ancient world, where for some people it probably wasn't easily available and the source was quite distant. It was several kilometers away. OK. So that that's not necessarily just walking up and down the street distance. That's quite a long distance. So it seems like they have all of this water, but nobody wants to drink it because it's lukewarm and it's got all these, you know, stuff in it like calcite and whatever. It's not fresh water. Nobody wants it, but there's plenty of it. OK. So it looks like they're rich. It looks like they have all this water, but nobody wants it. So it's useless water. They're they're naked, they're destitute. And you might think, well, you're just, you know, trying to use a cultural argument to get around. But well, the thing is, what does Jesus say? You think you're rich, you have need of nothing, but you're not. OK. That's what it's got to do with. So it's got to do with lukewarm church, nothing to do with individual Christians losing your salvation. Epiucion loses again. OK. So that's the next point. Now let's address the last point. I can finally, at long last, bring this reputation to a close. OK. So the last point to address, then, is where it says, blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. And that's in Revelation 2240. It's like, let's widen the verse scope just to get a bit of context. But here's what he's saying. It is flat out saying it's to do with, you know, you've got to obey the commandments for eternal life because that's the condition on entering the city. OK. Which is a heavenly city. So it starts this section, if you like, which I'm not surprised. Epiucion didn't even use this verse, really. But behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me to give every man according to his work. And you know, he'll love that one. We'll see right there. You know, there's the work. You've got to do the work to be saved. Well, the thing is salvation is a free gift. OK. This is reward. OK. Well, if it's a free gift, it's not a reward. OK. The reward must be something else. And, you know, even he does understand that people who believe in faith alone and want to save do believe in rewards for believers. OK. And that you can lose reward or, you know, you may just not have rewards. If any man's work will be burned up, he shall survive. But he himself shall be saved and so on. Corinthians. So these are rewards that are being given out for the work. It's not salvation that's being given out because salvation is a free gift. So the more you've done work, the more rewards you will get. But salvation is still by grace through faith. Case closed. So there's that one. I am the Alpha and the Omega beginning and the end. Blessed are they that do these commandments, do these commandments that they may have right to enter the tree of life and enter into the gates of the city. So I'll just highlight that for a moment. For without a dog, sorcerers, homeowners and idolaters and whosoever loves and makes a lie. And they're obviously sinners there. And I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify and see the things in the churches. I am the root of the offering of David in the bright and morning star and the spirit and the bride say come and let him that he is say come and let him that the first come and whosoever will let him take the water of life freely. I'll highlight that as well because that's quite important there. So this is the bit here. He's gonna focus on do his commandments well. So you've got to be doing the works because that's how you enter into the city. Well, yeah, you can say that if you like but you have to completely isolate this verse from everything else in the Bible and I completely isolate it from Revelation for a start. So, we've looked at loads of passages by now where he was flat out wrong about them. We pointed out that those who are in the books of life are not the ones who are judged by their works. It's the dead that are judged by their works. Those who are not in the book of life. So we've already established that before we even read this, okay? That was two chapters ago now we're on Revelation 22, okay? So, if you understand the overall pattern of Revelation and you understand the pattern of eternal life, you know that there's a future resurrection, okay? There's the millennial reign of Christ, okay? Then there's the final judgment, okay? And again, we've already dealt with the final judgment just a while ago. Well, now we're after all of that, okay? So the dead, they're already gone out the way. They've already been judged. They're long gone now. Their history, they're not even relevant anymore. They're those that are without, okay? They were judged according to their work. Well, they're those that are without. Blessed are they that do his commandments. Now, he doesn't say they may have right to the book of life. That was two chapters ago, he's the tree of life. Well, the tree of life, obviously, the only other obvious reference to this would be the tree of life back in Genesis. So this is where we're being restored to our state in Genesis, okay? But even before this, this is the new heavenly city, okay? The heavens and earth have passed away. Well, that hasn't happened yet, okay? But the future resurrection happens before that. So this is all after that. So all the people that do his commandments, okay? They've already been written in the book of life. They've already overcome by the blood of the lamb. They've already washed their robes in white. So they already obey his commandments by the time we get to this verse, okay? So they're gonna have right to the tree of life because they already do his commandments because they've already washed their robes by the time we get to that point. So for you now to get to that point, well, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you shall be saved. Future resurrection, new body. You won't be subject to the Lord of sin and death anymore. So you will do his commandments and you may have right to the tree of life, therefore. So once again, that was easy to deal with. And he goes on to say, let him that is a thirst come and whosoever will let him take the water of life freely. So the water of life is free. So, well, blessed are all they that do his commandments. Well, he commanded you to take the water of life freely, okay? He didn't command you to work for something that's free. So there you go. So, you know, anybody can just point to Jesus' commandments, but I've pointed out on my channel on other videos that it's not just the what Jesus says, like, you know, Jesus says sin no more or Jesus says believe on me or he says this, that and the other. But why did Jesus say those things? Okay. You see, when Jesus said whosoever believeth in me, eternal life was the reason that he told you to do that. Okay, that was the reason for that commandment. When Jesus said sin no more, he said it's two people, the woman caught in adultery and the man at the pool of Bethesda, who he healed. But in neither of those two dialogues, did he ever mention eternal life or believing on him to either of those two people? So eternal life is not the context of that saying, it's a physical condemnation. Already explained on my channel, John 5 and John 8, you can go find it, it's on my channel somewhere. So there's revelation brought to a close. Okay, so I'm just gonna finish with some closing words really and we can just bring this to a close.