Why do Christians disagree on the gospel so much and even condemn eachother?

Christianity is a very colorful religion, but at least it's not boring. Why do Christians have so many disagreements with each other? Why are there so many internal arguments like eternal security versus conditional security, faith alone, and faith with works, denominational specifics. The reasons why can be very complex and this video will focus more on the psychological reasons, but I will give you a couple of other introductory reasons as well. We already see in the Old Testament that despite there being one nation of Israel, it was already subdivided into different tribes and each tribe had different roles and different typical behaviors. And if you know your history, you know that the nation of Israel split in two. And then fast forward to Jesus time and of course we have the Pharisees and the Sadducees and there were also the Samaritans and secular history tells us of other groups such as the Essenes. Jesus himself of course taught that he would pit people against each other. Although it was only obvious at the time that he would split people into two groups, those who are for him and those who are against him. It wasn't so obvious that people who are supposedly for him would actually end up turning against each other. After the time of Ax, various churches are founded all across the Roman Empire and the Greekeaking world. And in the early stages, it's not that obvious that there were too many divisions. You get the impression that the church was fairly unified, although not to the extent that Catholics and Orthodox like to pretend that it was. But even back then, there were disagreements. The apostles described various dissenters, people who betrayed them and so on. And Paul had this disagreement here with Barnabas. And over this issue, they went about their separate way and did their own thing. Although it wasn't necessarily out of intense animosity. So when an atheist or a Roman Catholic tries to undermine your faith by pointing to all of the disagreements between the different groups and how in theory there should just be one, they hope not really to shake you because we already expect from the Bible that this would happen. Yes, you do always get that one person that says we should all just get along to go along. But the reality is I can't stand most other Christians and I'm sure a lot of my audience are the same. A lot of Christians just can't tolerate other Christians and that's just the way that it is. Especially because I find a lot of other Christians, even in the grace community, will misrepresent facts and misrepresent each other anyway. Like for example, I was once accused of being in league with or affiliated with Toronto Bible Study, but I've only ever had a couple of discussions with him and they were disagreements. Beyond that, we don't really like each other. It's also been said by somebody who supposedly believes in grace that I am close friends with truth spell and destroying the works of the devil. And this was an attempt to attack my credibility for yoking up with Calvinists or something to that effect, which is funny because we've never done any close collaborative work together. And yes, they sometimes comment positively on my channel and I sometimes comment positively on theirs from time to time, but to call that a close friendship, those words are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. So anyway, the Bible tells us that there will be disagreements and fallouts. There is a reason why Jesus taught his disciples to love one another as I have loved you. You wouldn't need to tell them to do this if it were easy to do and if they were going to do it anyway. Christianity is filled with douchebags and that's just the nature of sin, I guess. So every once in a while, we will fall out with each other and we will have disagreements. And as well as the biblical reasons, there are various practical carnal reasons why they disagree, which would be pretty much the same in politics and other subjects. The world is full of hatred. The world is full of disagreements. The world is full of different religions and different political systems, different cultures, and different histories that constantly divide human beings into separate groups of people. It's just what happens culturally and historically. There's nothing in the Bible that promises that Christianity should be in any way remarkably different. So, let's get on to the psychological reasons as to why we have so many different Christians believing in different things and how one supposed source of truth is leading to different conclusions. Now, although I've moved on from the biblical reasons, I should borrow this point to start with that Jesus did say that narrow is the way that leads onto life and few there be that find it. So, statistically, it should come as no surprise that most Christians will be wrong anyway on the topic of eternal life. But that doesn't really answer the psychology behind it, though. And the problem is that both groups of people think that they are righteous in their own eyes. Every Christian thinks that they are righteous about whatever flavor of Christianity they personally are promoting, even if it's at the expense of everybody else. So, what human authority really gets to decide who is the one person that's actually telling the truth. People who believe in salvation by grace through faith without works believe they are the ones on the narrow road and the wide road is filled with work salvation apostates. But people who believe you have to repent of your sins to be saved, they also think that they are on the narrow road and the wide road is filled with faith alone apostates. And since nononsense Christianity doesn't necessarily declare these labels, I'm not a Catholic, but I don't claim to be a Protestant. I'm an easy believer, but I don't claim free grace or sovereign grace as a theology. I don't subscribe to Armenianism or Calvinism, despite what some retards on the internet will say about me. But this essentially means that because a lot of Christians are very tribal, they would consider me to be morally suspect for not being part of their tribe. I'm probably not to be trusted even if they would agree with 95% of what I say. So then, by what authority can I really say anything about the Bible that's true? And if I make a claim from scripture and somebody else disagrees with me and quotes a bunch of Bible verses, what makes me right and them wrong? Or how do I know I'm not the one who's wrong? Although, I think a more important question would be, how can an independent third party who is invested in the outcome of the argument but not an advocate for either position decide objectively who is right and who is wrong? Before I explain this, it is important to understand that I am not immune to my own criticism of Christians in this video. Some Christians act like if they just pelt you with some random verse about something like let's say they quote some verse that warns about false prophets. They think that just because they quote that verse at you and spit out similar verses that that makes you the false prophet because they are quoting them at you. As if that's how it works. It's like they think they are exempt from being a false prophet so they can spit warnings about false prophets to other people and it only ever applies to those other people. It never applies to themselves. You must understand that to an extent every Christian is essentially his own pope. And I know Roman Catholics like to pretend that this doesn't apply to them because they already have a pope. They already have a church to tell them what they need to believe and they should just shut up and agree with it instead of thinking for themselves. But that's a bit like the cool kids in school bullying the uncool kids. Well, who gets to decide who's the cool kids? Well, it's a self-elected position. A Roman Catholic just decided that their church is the true authority. So therefore, it must be because that's how they think. So every Christian to some extent thinks that they are personally something special. So if I personally read the scripture and I interpret that we can lose our salvation. Every Christian who doesn't agree with me personally is not somebody who just read the Bible and reached a different conclusion with the same degree of honesty and integrity that I did. No, they are morally suspect. They have an agenda. They are a scripture twister who wants to please their itching ears. The problem is though that the person who reads the Bible and interprets that we can't lose salvation and has the opposite opinion has the exact same feelings of self-righteousness against him. And so he is the person who is morally suspect with an agenda and an impure heart. If you were a true Christian, your beliefs would agree with mine because I hear the voice of God. I'm saved. I'm so much more humble than everybody else, and I'm one of the few people that just seems to get it for some reason. If you were truly saved, your siology would agree with mine because I am truly saved. After all, I did say so on the internet, so therefore, that must make it true. There is no way you are reading the Bible and forming a different conclusion than me, unless you are a willfully ignorant heretic who deserves to go to hell for having the audacity to disagree with me in my humble interpretation of scriptures. And so this is the biggest problem in Christianity is that there is no human authority which has a truly objective view on the scripture that we can scientifically agree is correct. If we could well there wouldn't be many religions in the world. There wouldn't be many denominations and Christianity wouldn't be a religion. It would be a science in every way as chemistry and astronomy are sciences. Now there's a reason why it has to be this way which I won't discuss in this video. I'm working on another more philosophical video about the principles of grace and I'll publish that separately. But what it comes down to is we are really relying on men to tell us what God really means. But men are fallible. They have agendas. They are born in sin. They are untrustworthy. They have conceit, which in secular terms basically means they have an overly inflated ego. And they fancy themselves, but they like to pretend that they don't. After all, every man is right in his own sight. Now, you will get these holier than thou on the internet that say like, "Well, I don't listen to men. I'm only going to listen to Jesus." Well, that's all well and good, but you're still having different opinions from everybody else that says the same thing, and you still think you're this guy. Again, [clears throat] I'm not immune from my own criticism here. But I'm bringing this to everybody's attention so we can all re-evaluate how we defend what we believe in front of other people. And I'm constantly trying to revise my approach to explain the Bible in a way that is more objective and independently attestable. But that's a fine art to get that right. And I can't control the fact that most Christians won't let go of their popery. So how Christianity and theology differs from a field of science such as mathematics or chemistry or astronomy is how we form conclusions based on the source material. So if we take a subject like mathematics for instance, this is a nice agreeable easy subject because it always has a correct answer. 2 plus 2 always equals four. You don't get terrorist fanatics trying to kill people for believing that it equals 5. You don't get some crazy cult that believes that only the people that realize it equals three are the ones who get to go to heaven. So it's very objective and it's pretty much the same across every culture. Symbols and language notwithstanding. There is no human culture where 2 plus 2 does not equals four. Well, except maybe girl math, but that's not the topic of this video. So you take a math textbook and this will teach you how to use logic to figure out calculations. Now let's say you try to memorize your 12 times tables, but you never actually learn how to multiply. Well, you might be able to give the answer that 7 * 7= 49, but as soon as I confront you with a calculation that you've never memorized, like 13 * 379, well, you're not going to be able to work it out and you're not going to know the answer. So in the UK anyway, when you do a math exam, you don't just get points for getting the answer right. You also get points for showing you're working out. So maths is nice and easy because it's certain. It always has a correct answer and it's not tested by observation. It's tested by logical proof and deductive reasoning. It's pretty much universally true and it's morally neutral. Nobody gets particularly upset about it. But then you delve into the human sciences like let's say history. And unfortunately it's not as straightforward. It's much more complicated. You can read a history book and you're supposed to piece together the evidence and form a conclusion on what happened in history. But history is more complicated and there are conflicting opinions about what really happened and we end up trying to control the narrative. Now, even though something definitely happened in history, there is an actual event that happened. There are several factors that interfere with our ability to reason. So, for example, we may have biases where we look down on people in history as being a bit stupid or uncultured or we superimpose our value system on the evidence to form our own conclusions about history. It may also be that evidence is lacking. There are some things that we just don't know because we weren't there and it wasn't recorded or the recordings been lost. So, we can never know in any objective sense. There's also context where some evidence may not show all of the political or cultural context that applied at the time which may misshape how we perceive what happened. And then of course there's modern ethics. So let's say you wanted to challenge the Holocaust narrative. It would be very difficult to do that because it's practically illegal in some countries or you would certainly be ostracized for trying. So I'm not using a psychological clinical term for this. I'm borrowing a term from a model of communication. But this stuff is basically noise. Okay, it distorts our ability to hear clearly what actually happened. So being a human science, history is not entirely certain. Well, parts of it are, I suppose, but not all of it. We can't objectively know about everything that happened. And we could eventually discover some new information that could contradict old information. It's tested by what we observe using inductive reasoning, but observation is problematic because we all have different experiences and we don't all perceive the same things. Just because you think something is obvious from the history doesn't mean that somebody else also perceives it to be obvious. And so here in lies the problem that theology is really more akin to history than it is to maths. The answer is not always straightforward. In an ideal world, we should be able to take the Bible and see how it points to Jesus. He is the the evidence, the logic, the medium through which we understand the source material. And so we understand how the Bible teaches us that through Christ we have everlasting life. But then we have all of this noise. So, like we have our religious biases. Well, I believe my denomination is the truth. I believe my theology or my ism is the truth. So, that's going to skew how I perceive this. Or it may be spiritual blindness. The Bible flat out tells us that some people hear but are unable to hear and see but are unable to see. Some people are spiritually blind. You could slap them over the head with the Bible and they're never going to understand it. And a lot of Christians, and I find this is a very large chunk of Christianity, are skewed by emotional experiences. So, I might point out, let's say, that Pentecostalism is false because of all the tongue speaking nonsense that has nothing to do with biblical tongue speaking and falling on the floor and all of this silly stuff, but people won't really listen to what I have to say because they have emotional experiences that are attached to their Pentecostal beliefs. I feel things and then they skew how they perceive this. Or it might be, well, I don't like grace because that means people could sin and get away with it. That makes me feel something negative, so therefore what you're saying can't be true. The problem is that these aren't objective measures for deciding what is true or false. So in an ideal world, yes, we should be able to go from the Bible through Jesus to understand our eternal life belief system. But because of all the noise, the religious bias and so on and every Christian being their own pope essentially instead of going from the Bible through Jesus to eternal life, people start from a religion they already believe in. I believe my denomination is the true version of Christianity or I grew up believing what I believe and I'm not going to change it. I believe my theological ism is true. I believe that you can lose salvation or you can't lose salvation. And because I believe it, it's true because I believe it. But the problem is your religious beliefs won't have very much credibility if you don't use the source material. We all need this for legitimacy. So what happens is they start from their preconceived religion. So instead of going this way, they instead go Bible. So, what happens is when they want to call you a heretic with a false gospel, very often times they're just treating the Bible like it's a list of spells that you can kind of cast like a wizard and they can quote any random verse they can appeal to in order to make their religion seem true. Instead of building their religion around the Bible and understanding a methodical framework that goes 1 2 3 4, they already believe what they believe. So they just scour through the Bible looking for random verses that they can find and just quote mine those verses. Sometimes just completely ignoring the verses around it or the context leading up to it. Sometimes verses contradict each other if you just interpret it the way they interpret it. But they don't care. They just look for quotes that they can memorize and parrot to justify their religion. And yeah, we'll give lip service to Jesus. It is kind of about Jesus sort of. But you know, there's got to be something that you do as well. You've got to be involved here as well. You've got to play your part. But we can't say that because then it undermines this. So we have to sort of circle these without going directly through them. And by the way, this is not necessarily just exclusive to people with a worksbased salvation. Even people with a grace-based salvation can kind of behave like this on certain issues when they have pet doctrines or pet ideas that they don't want to let go of. And they think that people who don't agree with them are morally suspect. And so what happens is our theological tribalisms become kind of like an idol where we are no longer saved because of the grace of God that is good. But we are saved because we are among the few people who are smart enough and humble enough to submit to the correct theology of people who are most confident and arrogant about their own salvation at the expense of everybody else. And because their theology becomes an idol that they look to for salvation, it becomes their comfort castle and they start to see everybody else as a threat. So a Christian's pet doctrine becomes like his safe space. It's the castle within which he feels safe. And outside of the castle in no man's land, this may contain some uncomfortable truths that challenge his pet doctrines in his comfort castle. And so those strange ideas from no man's land, he starts to see those as threats. They could put a hole in his castle. It makes him feel like maybe my religion is not actually true. Maybe everything I believed was a lie. Maybe I'm just wrong. My pet doctrine makes me feel safe and I am truly saved, but this is now being questioned because you're making me feel unsafe. That's causing me to question my salvation. But then instead of internally reflecting and thinking, you know, maybe my castle isn't that safe, they lash out at the people who pose a threat to their safe space. This stupid you stupid heretic stupid. And they may call you a variety of names like unsaved heretic or antinomian, Calvinist, that sort of thing. It just depends on who's attacking you for whatever reason. But really, if you just call people these names every time they make you feel uncomfortable because of a doctrine that they're preaching, but you don't actually refute the issue, it really is the religious equivalent of being called a racist or a Nazi or a bigot by some pink-headed feminist lesbian with a nose ring and clown makeup. It's really just an ad hominant attack. There's no real argument to refute there. Let me give you an example of this. So, I made a post reporting the progress on my upcoming documentary. Now, it's clear from the thumbnail that I will actually be considering both sides of the argument in relation to OSAS and conditional security. So, I'll actually answer both points of view as objectively as I can, but it is obvious from the title what position I will advocate for. So, somebody in the comments posts a very sarcastic reply. >> Where did you get your ifas Bible version? Is it the contingent free edition? >> This is a straw man because he is assuming that I just ignore these verses. But if he read the notes that I typed up for subscribers to participate in my film, he would know that I will be looking at these passages where it says if and addressing them. So, I reply, "My Bible is full of ifs. It's just that Christianity is filled with retards who can't read." And then, of course, he proceeds to project. Oh, so you just adhere to subjective interpretation to maintain your private doctrine. Gotcha. This is a projection because we could just as easily say that about him. His religious biases mean that anybody who doesn't interpret the Bible he personally wants to be interpreted is a stupid untr. So I push back on this of course and say that that's basically what he does. My channel is full of content where I show people why I believe what I believe, where I'm getting it from. You can watch any of my videos and try to refute it or argue against [clears throat] it or prove me wrong. Of course, he's not going to do that. And of course, he is utterly incapable of going through all that material and responding to it. So he simply responds with wrong antinomianist anti-biblical content. So there it is again. I show that I will be using logic to show why I believe what I believe. And his only response is nuh-uh. They're stupid. I pointed this out to him of course and once again I received another ad homonym attack. There is nothing in scripture by the way that indicates that the Nickelans agreed with me doctrinally. But it's ironic that people who think that obedience is required to maintain salvation think that they can just make up any old lie on the internet and they get a free pass on their sins for some reason while accusing everybody else of living in sin. You figure out how that works. I've never been able to work that out. So once again, I point out that his admin attack is just like calling me a racist or a Nazi. It's just adomins. And as you can imagine, I got a similar response. You stupid. The next day, I then made a post about the word pistuo. And this is the thing that goes around in Christianity that it doesn't really mean believe. if it means commitment or something or other. Yet, for some reason, translators just don't translate it that way. Once again, this intellectually bankrupt commented, "I guess Paul, John, and Peter didn't get the memo via Galatians 5 and John 3 and 1 Peter 2." Notice the use of emoticons at the end. Now, my PC didn't render them all, but they do render on my mobile. None of the verses that he refers to in this comment use the word pistuo. So, if my post is starting a discourse about what Puo means, why would I run off to some random verses that don't use the word pistuo? What even is the point of him citing these verses? It's not like he's explaining anything from these verses. He's just citing them and making a sarcastic comment, which is the equivalent of going, "This stupid." Now, [clears throat] of course, that didn't stop him using emoticons. There are several terms that could describe this phenomenon. But basically, he's using these sarcastically so as to suggest that his views are genuine. And we are all idiots for not recognizing the thing that he said. But the thing that he said is incredibly stupid. He can't address my post about Pisuo. He can't refute anything that I said. He can't prove that Pisto means anything other than believe. So what is he doing? Running off to a bunch of other random verses that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Other douchebags in the comments also did similar things, not actually addressing an issue, and just running off to random irrelevant verses that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was just talking about. Using adom to attack me, but not actually explaining or refuting anything. This stupid you stupid heretic. The stupidest. Unfortunately, running away from verses you can't answer by running off to a different verses instead pretty much describes the Christianity of most people. There is a fascinating psychological phenomenon known as the Dunning Krueger effect. And although the original formulators probably used more polite and neutral language than I would use to describe it, it basically means that really stupid people at the bottom of the intellectual barrel, who have no competence or knowledge about the subject, apparently seem to have the most amount of confidence in it. In other words, it's why the dumbest retards in Christrysendom think they know the Bible better than everybody else. It's amazing how they don't apply this to other subjects, though. Ask any Christian what 2 plus two is, and they will correct the answer for. Ask them a basic rule about grammar, they will give you the correct answer. Ask them a more advanced question, and they may even get the correct answer. They can perfectly translate words in languages that aren't used in the original Bible, funnily enough, but Greek and Hebrew, not so much. Even some basic questions about the Bible, they will get correct. But then all of a sudden, the cat and mouse game kicks in. We are justified by faith and not James chapter 2. According to Acts 18:6 and Matthew 21:32, repentance is Acts chapter 2, repent of your sins. According to John 6, no man shall ever pluck them out of my but me. Eternal life is to whosoever you anti heretic. So if you know that hello is hola in Spanish, then in Greek pisto is translated as you stupid. It means more than just believe. It's like somebody just turns a switch and they go from being perfectly rational, normal people who can answer basic questions correctly to just being imbeciles who cancel out everything you say by just quoting some other random verse that has nothing to do with what you said and throwing out random insults. The reason why they do this is because they're interpreting their religion backwards and they think that the Bible is like a book of spells that you can cast like you're a light side wizard. and any of my counterarguments or arguments that I formulate from other verses, they treat this as like I'm some sort of dark wizard who's trying to put a curse on them that attacks their pet religion and then they have to counteract those spells by casting their own spells. That's how they treat the Bible. They think that just casting random verses at you and spitting verses at you is some sort of valid attack or valid point that they are making. They think that just declaring me an unsaved antonyomian heretic somehow makes it true because they posted a comment on the internet saying so. They are trying to speak their truth into existence. But this is expected when you make a Christian feel uncomfortable about their belief system. Now you might think that this is predisposed to work salvation legalists only. But there are also people who shout very loudly about grace who also fall into this trap. Let me show you an example. Somebody commented on my channel claiming that God doesn't choose people for salvation according to 2 Thessalonians 2:13 for two reasons. Number one, this passage is about the Antichrist being revealed. Well, it is true that there is an end times application to this passage, but that doesn't change the fact that it's talking about unrighteousness and righteousness of the audience that Paul is writing to. And the fact that the verse objectively says that God has chosen you to salvation. His second argument is that God is choosing us for sanctification during this time. Well, this is a messy subject and although I haven't done a video on this, it seems that a lot of Christians don't know what sanctification means. So, of course, this guy is thinking walking in good works of holiness during the end times. But the verse doesn't say we are chosen onto sanctification. We are chosen onto salvation and it's through sanctification. And what sanctification means is the separation of the saved from the unsaved. That's how our salvation and our election is manifest. He then says what I can only say is the dumbest argument against election I've ever heard. God doesn't choose people to be saved. Otherwise, it makes verses like John 3:16 nonsense. Classic Dunning Krueger effect behavior. This verse doesn't say anything about us choosing God. It says whosoever believeth. It doesn't say whosoever chooth which really is a bit like saying whosoever is persuaded by. That has nothing to do with whether God chose us or not. After a bit more chewing and throwing, this conversation ended like you would expect. Nuh-uh. This stupid, you stupid heretic stupid. And then the old gaslighting technique of the Bible clearly states the position that I wish was true. I'm the pope, and if you don't agree with me after I throw the word clearly around, you must be a false teacher. Well, the Bible does actually clearly state that God has chosen us onto salvation, almost verbatating. And the only counteracting verse he provided was a verse that didn't say choose. from a book where the illustration doesn't even make sense because it uses the phrase born again. Being born in your flesh wasn't even a choice. So, it's a daft illustration if you're trying to argue that it's about choice. Not to mention that the same book also says that we're not born according to the will of man. But he didn't explain that. All I got was nu. And then it ended in the straw man, you believe Calvin rather than the Bible. Now, he didn't directly call me an unsaved hellbound devil, but he was in one of his comments calling my salvation into question. It's funny about how we're saved by grace until we're not all of a sudden. Well, that's funny because I base my beliefs directly on a bat and quote from the Bible and I've never read Calvin's works. But people don't like it when you challenge their traditional narrative and their doctrine is an idol. It all goes back to what I said earlier. Christians live in a comfort castle. The idea that God chooses people for salvation makes him feel threatened. It challenges his narrative. It's an attack on his pet doctrines. It makes him feel uncomfortable. When you make people feel threatened, they lash out with the insults and question your salvation, which is ironic for people who believe in salvation by grace, but then have a bunch of irrelevant conditions that have nothing to do with the gospel. But there you go. Sinful flesh be sinful flesh. And here in lies the problem. Christians don't want to let go of their preconceived ideas that make them feel safe. But they all have contradictory ideas. They only use the Bible as a tool to make their religion feel credible, to make their safety feel safe. But they don't really know how to defend what they believe. so that all they can do is lash out at the people who make them feel uncomfortable about what they believe. And it's not just, you know, me that they do it to. They do it to each other. They do it to atheists and non-Christians alike. However, there is a place beyond no man's land where you can step outside of your comfort castle. And it's the wilderness of understanding where you open your mind to other ideas and you try to look at the Bible in a lens that's not too distorted by other people's predefined systematic theologies. Kind of a reset button, if you will. And in this area, there are treasures to be found. and you may realize things that you didn't actually realize were there before and you start to actually be able to understand the Bible for yourself instead of needing a theology with some loud mouths in it to tell you what to believe. I no longer feel threatened that God chose us onto salvation. It doesn't make me uncomfortable like it used to. I no longer feel threatened that maybe the work salvation guys or the loss of salvation guys might have a valid point. I now know that they don't. So, I'm no longer threatened by what other Christians believe. The more I enter into this realization, the more confident I can be in Christ and the better I can explain my positions. And I start to perceive that Bible passages that I previously thought didn't fit very well with my beliefs are actually starting to make perfect sense with what I believe once I changed my lens from making the Bible agree with my religion to understanding how the Bible points to Christ, which is the means by which I enter into life. And the apostles no longer sound like crazy people who say one thing but really mean another. You know, they say that salvation is without works but don't really mean it. They say that God chose us on salvation but he didn't really. You know, no more of this running away. Take for example my view on eternal security. I will state that John 6 proves eternal security and I have a reason because the passage is literally talking about everlasting life. That's the terminology. That is the context. That's what it's talking about. And Jesus uses absolute terms to describe a transaction that happens when a person gets saved. You know, the father gives them onto Jesus. Jesus shall raise them up at the last day and so on. Following this, Jesus has a set of commitments he is obligated to fulfill. He should lose nothing. He will raise it up at the last day. And I can essentially prove all of this from John 6 alone. I don't need to run across random parts of the Bible to just random verses that I just pluck from random books. It has a nice logical flow from verse 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 and it just reads like an actual book going down. The passage is self-sufficient for the people that Jesus is talking to. It's a self-contained conversation. Most Christians, however, cannot do this if their life depended on it. So, let me give you an example. When these people come on my channel and attack my belief, and by the way, this isn't an actual conversation. And this is a parody of how a lot of my conversations go on the internet. So, somebody will challenge me by saying that John 15 proves you can lose your salvation. Well, for a start, I point out it doesn't actually mention eternal life. I mean, at least when I went to John 6, I actually found a passage that mentioned eternal life. You haven't got off to a very good start there. Shut up, you stupid heretic. Their rebuttals will be things like Jesus is clearly teaching you can be cut off from the vine, so therefore eternal security is not biblical. So, then I ask, well, how do you know that's what cut off the vine means? You haven't proven that this means eternal life. You haven't proven that this applies to eternal life. You're just saying things and acting like a poetic statement automatically means what you assume it to mean because you said a thing on the internet. The classic tactic when you push them into a corner like that is to completely ignore your question and run off to something else. Now, I suppose it's a little bit more difficult to do that in a live debate, but in an internet comment that's written, you can just ignore things that you don't want to address very easily. They very often do. He who endures to the end shall be saved. Well, yes, that's all fascinating, but we were talking about John 15. What has that that verse doesn't come from John 15? Why are you even quoting it? I thought you were using John 15 to state your case. Now, I need to do another video on this someday, but this is essentially what would happen then. So, they say he enjoys to the end shall be saved. I would say, well, I thought we were talking about John 15. The verse you're quoting doesn't even come from John 15. Why are you talking about it? And then I might say something like that verse is irrelevant to our discussion. And they will take that statement, that verse is irrelevant to the issue, and they will misquote me as saying, uh, your thing that scripture is irrelevant. You are literally blaspheming. You notice the word the word literally being used there for a misquote. The problem is that's not what I said. I didn't say that verses are irrelevant as if that verse shouldn't be in our Bible. I said it's not relevant to the issue we are discussing. That you started a conversation arguing for conditional security from a passage and when I challenged you from that passage, you ran away from it and ran off to something else. Now, you would wonder again why somebody with works based salvation who thinks that they have to tell the truth to go to heaven would lie about what what we say. You know, like we say we are saved by grace through faith. Jesus should lose nothing. Um, you know, your works have nothing to do with salvation. God chastises his children. And they just take one bit your thing that you could just live in sin. Your you just want to go and murder and kill. [clears throat] Like it's just amazing that people who think telling the truth to go to heaven, but they get an excuse for just lying about what people say. And so, well, can't we confront them about that lie? Can't we like say, well, why are you misquing me if we have to work our way to heaven? That's a good question. But you just do the classic thing that you always do on an internet YouTube comment. Ignore the accusation and hope it blows away. Jesus taught obedience. You wicked sin. None of this oath not. Yeah. Yeah, but you just bore false witness against me. That you just misqued me. You didn't obey the commandment to not false bear false witness against the neighbor. Once again, ignore the accusation and hope it blows away. I am walking in commandments every day. I love Jesus. You are those. Well, the thing is we just proved that you did sin, but you just ignore it every time we confront you about it. So, you're clearly not walking in the commandments. But again, these Christians are wizards. They think that they can speak the truth into existence. If I quote a verse about holiness from some random passage and I say that we have to do good works to be saved, I guess that automatically means that I'm doing it because I say things, even though you can't just say that you believe. It's funny how that works, isn't it? And I know you might think I'm digressing on some kind of rant here that was irrelevant to the topic of this video. But I'm trying to explain to you the Christianity of most people or certainly most of the opposition that I have to deal with. And the problem is to do with how most Christians read the Bible. It's not like a collection of books where you can read any one book in order and the book is a self-contained book that explains itself and any given conversation that Jesus has with an individual is a self-contained conversation that's sufficient for that person. They read it like a convoluted conspiracy theory board where we have to pluck random verses from different parts of the Bible and just join them up to make up whatever nonsense religion we feel like making. But then they all have different belief systems because they all quote mine and choose different pet verses. So like well one verse says something about abiding in me and then another verse says about denying self or something or other not really relevant and then another verse says about being baptized something about the bread and then they just join these verses up but there's no coherent relationship between these verses and every time you try and challenge their narrative they just run off to a different verse and change the topic of conversation. They are wizards. They think the Bible is a book of spells. They think they can cast spells on you like a sorcerer. If I quote a verse about false prophets at you, you are one because I posted a comment on the internet quoting it at you. So therefore, it must be true. That's how these people think. And I know they will pretend that they don't. And I'm sure somebody watching this thinks that this sounds ridiculous, but if there's anybody out there who agrees with me, once you see it, you cannot stop seeing it. And so ultimately what happens is Christians miss the the big picture. They look for easy pickings, like verses that they just memorize and quote mine to make them feel like their religion is true. Well, I believe that conditional security is true. Oh, look, there's a verse that says he enjoys to the end. I can take that easy picking and then pelt it at somebody who argues with me. But they only really focus on what Jesus said. Oh well, he said in George the instit to be shall be saved. So therefore, you must do this to be saved and it's some kind of instruction for eternal life. They only focus on the what. They never actually bother to understand why Jesus said this. And this is where I was mentioning stepping outside of no man's land and going into the wilderness of understanding. It's more difficult to find, but it is more rewarding. So take for example the aforementioned verse. He who endures to the end the same shall be saved. There are many Christians who believe that this means they can lose their salvation. So they like this verse. It's very easy picking and they can just pelt it at you and voila, they just prove their religion to be true by quoting a random verse that they easily found and say no more about it. If however you step into the wilderness of understanding and you try to understand how the scripture points to Christ and how this leads to our salvation, you would look at that verse in a completely different way. So it's in Matthew 10 and 24. And in both cases when Jesus said this statement, he's talking to his disciples. Now Judas notwithstanding the disciples they already believe. They're already faithful. They're already going to preach the gospel in this passage. And Jesus knows that they are going to. And when they preach the gospel, which they are going to do anyway, he's warning them that they will be hated. And that's the context of this statement. And when this happens, when people hate you, obviously you're going to have doubts or feel uncertain. But guess what though? You can actually flee to another city. So when they say they're tell deny yourself, you've got to be willing to die for Jesus. Well, Jesus did say you could flee to another city. So that doesn't even make any sense. So no denying self or taking up the cross doesn't mean you just have to sit there and be killed because you can flee to another city. And in Matthew 24, when things are going to get really bad, Jesus is going to warn about the things that are going to happen during this time. And again, that's where the statement also comes from. And when all of this crazy stuff is happening, whoever experiences it is going to feel a little overwhelmed to say the least. They might be killed or they might be scared that they might be killed. And they're going to wonder where is God in all of this? How is God going to help us from this terrible situation? So, the reason why Jesus is saying this to his disciples is, "I'm coming for you. I'm coming to get you when you see these terrible things and it's going to make you wonder where I am in all of this. I'm coming for you. This is all leading up to the time when I am about to appear. I'm coming to rescue you from all of this. I'm coming to gather the elect." Now, if you do get killed, well, Revelation does say there's a special reward for that, but anyway, if you don't get killed, I'm going to come rescue you. It's going to be hard. You're going to be enduring, but as you're enduring, know that I'm coming for you, and I am your savior. When you realize this, you see how the phrase, "He who endures to the end shall be saved," takes on a completely different meaning. It's not a warning about you and all the things you have to do to get eternal life. In fact, it's not even an instruction with conditions. Like, it's not saying, "If you don't endure, you'll lose your salvation." But actually, it's a comforting passage. You're going to feel like giving up. You're going to feel like God's not watching you. You're going to feel like everything's gone really bad and God is abandoning you. But Jesus is coming for you. You can flee to another city if it helps. Not to mention the fact that Jesus even gives some practical instructions about what it means to endure to the end. Flee to the mountains. Do not come down and take anything out of the house. Do not return back to the field to take clothes. Notice how none of this has to do with turning from your sin and doing a bunch of good works. It's just how to survive this situation. So, how did we get from Jesus saying these things to this statement a few verses earlier is all about you and your good works and turning from sin? Well, the answer is quite simple. This is how you got there. by starting from your religion and trying to quote mine verses to justify your false religion. Of course, you can point this out to people who think that you can lose salvation and it all boils down to stupid. You stupid heretic the stupidest out there. You're a stupid unsame hellbound devil. Run off to some other irrelevant because I can't refute what you just said.