Why some Christians are obsessed with condemning others to Hell (and I no longer agree with it)

There are a minority of Christians, a small but very vocal minority, who are obsessed with calling every other Christian under the sun unsaved, hellbound, heretic. This is not necessarily reserved for people with free grace theology. Some sinless perfectionists can be a little bit like this, too, sometimes. Undiscernment Ministries are kind of like the more polite version of what I am describing, but it's this need that they have to constantly remind people multiple times that they are unsaved goats. Curiously, though, when two so-called grace believers start to turn against each other, they can become a little bit obsessed with each other all of a sudden, and people that were supposedly once brothers and sisters in Christ are one step away from condemning each other to hell. Now, I am in no position to throw stones from the top of my ivory tower. In some previous videos I've done against, uh, you know, the work salvation guys, I've been a bit overzealous and over the top myself. So, for example, you may remember in my second repentance documentary that I practically wished people to hell or to die. As I did my note-taking for the documentary on eternal security that I'm working on, I started to realize that I don't quite see Christ and his apostles behaving in this sort of way, or at least not to the same extent, anyway. Now, of course, Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites. He did once say to some Jews that tried to kill him, "You are of your father the devil." But when they did eventually kill him, of course, he said, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do." Paul would also be accursed for his brethren's sake, and they occasionally persecuted him. And of course, that's notwithstanding that we do have some Old Testament passages about David praying for his enemies to be blotted out of the book of the living and so on. Now, I still stand by the overall point that that documentary was correct in calling the legalists hypocrites. But if I was to make it again, do the whole thing over, I would have maybe left out the comments just outright calling people unsaved or condemning them to hell or wishing them to die. I would have probably changed my approach slightly. In my defense, though, I would say generally that criticizing other people is a minority of what I do. It's not the majority of my content, nor do I wish it to be. But there are people out there that that seems to be the majority of all that they do, right? Most of their content, if not all of it, is just pointing out how everybody else is an unsaved devil for the same heresy that we've exposed in almost every single video. I've gotten myself in trouble for criticizing this in the past. For example, uh Fuego Savvy once uh posted a critical comment saying something to the effect of, "Well, who are you, David, to say how much we should or shouldn't be doing this? What What's the percentage?" >> [snorts] >> And that's a fair point, I said to him, uh "You've got me there because I haven't done the maths on this, uh nor do I think that you can really exact it down to a formula like that." But the fallout that he had with Unfriendly Hood and that that guy's also had with other people is very symptomatic of the type of mentality that this produces when most of your ministry content, or at least a large chunk of it, is focused on behaving that way and condemning every person under the sun. And I think this is why there is a section within free grace that constantly eats itself all the time. So, I haven't personally done the statistics on how much of the Bible or how much of the New Testament focuses on false teachers, okay? So, all I can do is I can just point some things out to you and just give you an overall pattern or an overall flavor and why I think it's a problem. So, let's take for example the Apostle John's first epistle. He warns about antichrists who denied that Christ is coming in the flesh. We don't know what their names were. We don't even know what group or sect they were a part of, if any. So, was he talking about Jews? I've argued that perhaps they could have been. Was he talking about Gnostics? That seems to be what most people say, but there's no internal evidence from the epistle. Some other sect that we just don't know what it was or maybe they weren't any sect at all. >> [sighs] >> And strictly speaking, John doesn't actually say explicitly whether they were saved or unsaved. >> [gasps and sighs] >> Now, I would argue that he certainly hinted that they were unsaved. I think he threw hints that suggested that could be the case, but he still didn't explicitly say it. So, the antichrists as well, if you go through all of the verses where he describes them and then the verses where he's talking about the other stuff, the antichrists were a relatively small part of his overall epistle and it seems more important to John that their mention was only really to give context to his more positive and uplifting messages surrounding them that that I would say the epistle is actually about in its totality. >> [gasps] >> But let's take another example. So, we have Peter who warns about false teachers in his second epistle. But mainly it's in the second chapter, right? So, it's this middle chapter, but then that means we've got 2/3 of the epistle not talking about false teachers. So, it's still a minority. It's less than half. Now, again, Peter did not mention the names of specific individuals. He doesn't directly mention any particular sect of Christians or a location where you could point to and say, "This is happening right over there at those people right there." The legalists, of course, like to attribute it to us, but they present no evidence whatsoever that he was talking about some Otha sect. At the same time, we haven't got any evidence that he was talking about a lot sect, either, okay? And some of his warnings actually in that passage weren't about the teachers themselves, but about the people being deceived by them. Now, one of you will say to me, perhaps, "Well, there are just some passages, but there are other passages where names are clearly mentioned, like Hymenaeus, for example." Well, what do we know about Hymenaeus? We know that he shipwrecked the faith. We know that he blasphemed and said that the resurrection is already past. But, was he saved, though? Paul didn't say either way. What was his view on salvation by faith and not of works? If we were to sit right next to him and ask him, well, we don't really know without making up a bunch of conjecture. >> [gasps] >> Was his blasphemy or heresy of the eternally damnable type? Well, again, Paul didn't tell us. >> [sighs and gasps] >> We often just assume these things, whoever we are and whatever we believe. Now, what about Balaam? Well, the way that Peter and Jude and Jesus spoke about him seems to imply or give us the impression as the reader that he wasn't saved, but still they didn't explicitly say so. They didn't call him an unsaved, hell-bound devil. They commented on his actions rather than his personhood. Now, let's take the statement where Paul says about law keeping Galatians. If any man preach any other gospel, let him be accursed. You all know that one. Now, this time we kind of know what sect Paul was talking about, but no specific names given again. Well, what does Paul mean by accursed? Because if you compare scripture with scripture, you could go to the Old Testament and the curses of the law were manifest in a physical way, physical destruction. But when Paul talks about curses of the law in the New Testament, he seems to be linking it more with our justification as it applies to everlasting life. So, Paul is technically using terminology then that is somewhat questionable or open to interpretation. He's not outrightly saying you are going to hell or not. Even words like saved and condemnation can have application and sometimes we have to guess or assume which kind it is, whether we think it's eternal or physical. And sometimes it does seem like people don't really know. They're just assuming because it works with their doctrine to say one or the other. I would argue then that if we were to be honest and really try to categorize scripture based on how clear it is in terms of whether somebody obviously went to heaven or hell. You could probably count on one or two hands how many specific named identifiable individual characters in the Bible definitely made it to heaven and definitely made it to hell. We know that Abraham, for example, made it to heaven. We know that the poor beggar Lazarus of Luke's gospel made it into the same place as Abraham. So, there's two people that we know for certain. We know that an unnamed rich guy who happened to know that Lazarus ended up in hell. We know very little else about him. But most of the time we are just assuming or just guessing or just deciding. But the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us either way. Now, there are obviously patterns and instructions and illustrations that help us to separate the saved from the unsaved. But not so much that you can point to that exact character and say well the Bible outright categorically state that person went to heaven and that person went to hell. This is a shocking thing to some of you because in easy believers and we are so accustomed to and obsessed with this very black and white way of thinking. Uh where it either is or it is not. You know, like grace and works for example. You know, it can't be like a mixture of the two or possibly one or the other. And of course we like our King James Bible because it tells it like it is rather than a lot of these fluffy vague modern translations that we hate so much. But whichever way you slice it though, there are some things I'm sorry to tell you where the scripture uses hints and implicit language but doesn't actually say the explicit thing that you wish it said. This upsets some people because then it sounds like I'm making parts of the Bible seem vague or ambiguous. There are some things that the Bible is explicit about and for good reason. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved is explicit. It's by grace through faith. That's explicit. There is not a just man upon the earth that does good and sins not. Again, that is explicit. But was Hymenaeus saved? Were Ananias and Sapphira saved? The Bible could have just said they went to heaven or they went to hell or they have eternal life or they don't have eternal life if the Holy Spirit wanted us to have a strong definitive opinion about that. And yet, it just didn't bother to tell us. And if it was that explicit, all Christians would be agreeing with each other. But, very often we don't. So, it can't be that clear if we can't even decide on how clear it is. So, maybe an alternative proposition for you is that the Bible doesn't require us to form all of these opinions on who specifically is going to hell and who isn't. It only wants us to have clear knowledge about how we ourselves don't end up there and how we can tell other people not to end up there. Why, you ask? Well, because salvation [snorts] is by you guessed it grace through faith and not of works. And when you think that you're one of these special ones who's very, very certain about yourself going to heaven, but then you're so certain about all of these other hell-bound people around you that you say are definitely going to hell. You can become a very prideful and boastful, arrogant ungraceful individual. That's the psychological effect if you become that kind of a person. And I have, obviously, in the past fallen into that trap myself. So, I can only comment on this based on the patterns that I have become aware of within myself. Let's say I make a video, which I did, on why the passage of the sheep and the goats does not teach a works-based salvation. All right? And I present such a case for you that any one of you can look down in your own Bible, your King James Bible, and you can say within yourself, "David, the things that you said in that video are very obvious to me now. I can look down in my own Bible, and I can see the pattern that you're describing for myself. I I perceive that what you say is true. You're not just saying things on the internet, and I just have to assume that you're telling the truth. I can see it for myself. And of course, when a legalist is going to comment against that video, you're probably going to guess what they're going to do. More often than not, they're going to run off to some other passage that the video was not about, something that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Or they're just going to attack my character, but they can't attack the substance of the video. Well, then you could say that in a way, I have successfully debunked and refuted and obliterated every single Christian who's ever going to misappropriate that passage to say that it teaches works, even if I didn't do a video personally about them. Furthermore, you yourself are equipped to know the truth for yourself, such that you don't actually need me anymore to explain it for you. So, it wouldn't matter if my channel was shut down and all my videos disappeared, and I just disappeared from the face of the earth, because you don't need me anymore. You are now self-sufficient on your own to be able to understand that passage. So, you don't need to feel threatened by every single Christian who's clearly not going to agree with you that that passage does not teach a work salvation. And so, it's not really necessary for me to do a video after video after video dedicating time out of my day to point out every named individual reprobate out there who's going around teaching that that parable proves a works-based salvation. That would just be a complete waste of my time. I've already established that it isn't. Much in the same way, Paul could have wrote epistle after epistle after epistle after epistle about every single person he knew that was an unsaved, damnable, horrible, hellbound reprobate, and we would our Bible would just be littered with this stuff. He could have condemned every single Pharisee that he personally knew was an unsaved, hellbound devil, and yet he doesn't really talk about them that often. Instead, he gave us Romans, he gave us Galatians without mentioning lots and lots of names. And whatever he said in Romans or Galatians to teach us about what salvation is seems to be sufficiently doing the job to edify us and to help us understand how salvation works. We don't need to know the names and the specifics of every evil Pharisee that disagrees with this teaching. We've already established what the teaching is from one or two letters. So, there is somewhat then of a disconnect between how the apostles spread the message of grace and truth compared to how a lot of us seem to be doing it. I myself being guilty as charged. We have a strange obsession in Christianity with talking more about what Satan's doing than what God's doing. It's very fascinating. And I suspect that I have figured out a psychological reason for why that is, but I don't know how many people I'm going to offend by saying it. And I think that the people most likely to be offended are the ones who are going to be most intent on denying it. Now, I'm not making this video with the deliberate intent to offend somebody. I just have a suspicion that the subject matter is going to cause a lot of offense to some people at least. Now, I don't care if you personally watching this are somebody who dedicates their entire YouTube channel to calling everybody else false and unsaved. That's not really my problem. I don't care. But, I'm making this so that those that will hear it will not fall into the same trap. You see, Christianity is filled with people telling us what to believe. This is the correct doctrine. This is how I personally interpret the Bible, and it's clearly biblical because that's what I want it to be. So, if you don't interpret the Bible the way that I personally do, you must be some kind of evil heretic with these evil motivations that loves deceiving people. Because if you weren't, then you would automatically agree with me in everything I believe. So, you must just be the heretic who's on their way to hell, I guess. I love Jesus and you don't. It's that kind of a mentality. >> [gasps] >> Notice how the stereotype I am presenting superimposes virtue and righteousness on himself, but assumes an evil motivation on everybody else. Yet, so many people mutually do this towards each other. Everybody is the main character in his own movie, where he is the modern Christian hero in the absence of Jesus being physically here. Everybody awards himself with the number one badge. They won't admit this, of course, but I'm trying to get you to see the mentality that goes behind the sort of people who behave like this. And it it doesn't matter whether they're doing it for grace's sake or for works' sake, they're doing it. >> [gasps] >> As I said, what they're doing more often than not is telling you what to believe. And labeling you and assuming motivation on your part if you don't submit to what they're telling you to believe. This isn't the exclusive domain of the saved or the unsaved. There is an apparent shortage of Christians who, whether their doctrine is right or wrong, will show you how to believe or why you should believe what they believe. Now, you can compel people with verses and just completely carpet bomb people with random verses that you memorized, but that doesn't actually prove or explain anything. The legalist who quotes James chapter 2, much to our fatigue, knows full well that the Bible says by grace through faith and not of works in Ephesians. It doesn't come as a surprise to him when a free grace appoints that verse out to him for the 50th time. He does know that it says that. >> [sighs and gasps] >> The problem is is that he does a rather lame job of explaining why Paul would say saved through faith and not of works when if what they believe is true, he could have instead said saved through faith and works not by the law but by obedience because that's what they want us to believe but that's not how Paul phrased it. They don't explain why Paul would phrase it in the way that he did because if he phrased it in a different way, it would make so much more sense with what they believe is true, right? Similarly, this is where I'll upset some people, I'm sure. The free grace who parrots 2 Timothy 2:13 >> [gasps] >> knows all of the verses from 1 John where Willie the worker throws at him and he likewise often does a rather lame job of explaining why would Paul or John use words like saved or eternal life extensively and tell you about knowing that you're saved in an epistle that has nothing to do with whether you're saved cuz it's about fellowship or rewards or something or other and they're very often just superimposing a predefined definition of fellowship in the passage anyway. Why would John take a statement from Jesus in his gospel account like whosoever believes is passed from death to life and then morph that saying to say we know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren. But for some reason, it's not being evangelistic. He's talking about rewards or something or other. But he's just going to copy the exact same terminology from Jesus where Jesus was talking about how to be saved and there's some arbitrary distinction between an initial one-time faith and continual belief but he's using the exact same terminology or a a clear slight paraphrase of the specific terminology from Jesus for some reason. And if you don't agree with it, well, you must be a works-back loader. I don't really know what else to tell you. Doesn't really explain why the verse is worded that way, but does it? You see, the problem is we're told too often what to believe. And I'm sorry if some of my videos are a bit long or I sometimes get accused of over-explaining things or waffling on instead of just getting to the point. And I don't pretend to do everything right, but the reason why I may appear to some of you to do that is because I don't just want to tell you, "This is what you should believe from this passage cuz that's what I want you to believe and that's convenient for me if it says that." I want to show you why I believe that it says that so that you yourself can look down in your own Bible and you can see the pattern that I am describing for yourself so that you can see that it's true and we don't need to build a personality cult around me to explain it for you, okay? So, I want you to be able to see the premise and the conclusion because then you understand for yourself why that passage is worded the way that it's worded if what I say is true. And then you once you've seen that and you can see it for yourself, there's no longer a dependence on me anymore. You You You don't need me after that, right? Because if I just said, "So-and-so is talking about fellowship or rewards, he's not talking about eternal salvation because shut up and trust me, bro." Well, I'm not really explaining why he would say saved or eternal life if he could have just said rewards or something or other. Like, heaven forbid the apostles would use the terminology for the thing that they're actually trying to explain. Because if I just make these presumptions and then anybody who disagrees with me, I'm just going to call them an unsaved, hell-bound devil or something, well, I'm not really much that different from the legalists. I just have a different position that I want to exert. And that kind of mentality, that behavior, it produces, in my view, weak-minded Christians who they they can memorize and parrot verses verbatim. They just parrot a different set of verses than the legalists are going to parrot. They know what to believe, but they can't always explain why what they believe is actually true. Or they can't explain why certain passages in the Bible are phrased in the way that they are phrased if they really mean what you say they mean, okay? And sometimes, just as it happens with the legalists, you ask them about a position, or you ask them about a specific passage in the Bible, and then they run off to another passage that you didn't even ask them about, and assume that it's but they don't even prove that it's related to the concept, either. Like they they don't prove that that other passage that they're running off to has anything to do with the specific one that you're being asked about. So, someone might ask them, "Well, why does the Bible say we know we are passed from death onto life because we love the brethren instead of saying because we believe?" Well, you're just a work salvation heretic who's going to hell if you quote that verse at me. You must be a work truster or a backloader. Well, that's fascinating, but it doesn't really answer my question, does it? And even if it were true that the person asking the question is a hell-bound work the backloader. Well, that's all fascinating, and in some cases you might be circumstantially correct, but you still haven't explained why John said it, though. And if he's talking about physical death, not spiritual death, well, you still haven't explained why he copied the same terminology from Jesus and adapted it when Jesus was talking about everlasting life. Well, um you're a backloader. You can't explain it. You're just a backloader. You're just a heretic. That would mean X Y Z for what you say, so it must not mean that because that's inconvenient for me if it means that. That That's often what it comes down to and it's people are processing the cognitive dissonance that they start to go through. And this is the problem. >> [sighs and gasps] >> When you just tell people what to believe, but you don't explain how or why people should believe it and you just say, "This passage is about fellowship or rewards because I said so, even though it just says saved, but let's just pretend that it doesn't say that." And you've only given like a 5-minute sermon that explaining that. Well, you haven't actually explained or proven anything. You're just producing Christians who only know how to parrot verses, but they don't really understand or know how to explain those verses to anybody. You don't explain or understand why the apostles would phrase a passage in a particular way if they really mean what you personally say they actually mean. And so, what happens is Christians are ill-equipped to deal with the passages that when read at a surface level don't seem to jive very well with what they think they believe. And then they misunderstand or misassume the motivation of the person who challenges them. Well, if you believe that John is being salvific or you believe you must be some kind of work back loading heretic. You You must have some evil motivation about you. You must be rubbing your grubby little hands together like a little house fly hoping you can deceive people because if you are if you are pure in heart, you would just see it the way I want you to see it and you'd just agree with me. And look, this isn't I don't want you to think that like I'm attacking like everybody in free grace for doing this. They don't all behave like this and it's not just them. This could apply to anybody, okay? The hyper graces can do this. The The The legalists can do this, okay? There is a reason why people like Charlie Michaels and James Frazier are obsessed with constantly going after free graces all the time because they do the same thing. They just do it on the opposite side of the spectrum, right? And why they seem to hate free grace theology and go after those guys so much more than other people. Particularly the loudmouths who go against them funnily enough. It's because what the free gracer is saying calls their beliefs into question. And it makes them feel uncomfortable about their sinless perfectionism beliefs. They want to talk about bending the knee and submitting to Christ. But of course they're disobeying the commandment not to keep admonishing heretics over and over again. You know that verse that says reject them. They're very choosy about which Bible verses they like to obey and disobey even though it's all about obeying Jesus. See? Because the free gracer who attacks Charlie Michaels and James and they they've made them feel uncomfortable. It's making them question their religion that makes them feel safe in their own self-righteousness. That's why they're obsessed about attacking those guys. But sometimes those guys are obsessed about attacking them back as well. >> [sighs] >> And I also think I wonder how how I wonder if I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but I wonder if that's why some free will Freddies are very very contemptible or contemptuous. I don't know what the right word is. Like their hatred towards very unnecessarily in my view people with a sovereign grace theology. Because I think that the sovereign grace interpretation of election and predestination makes free will Freddy feel very uncomfortable about his belief system and makes him wonder whether he's really saved or not. And it causes him to doubt his salvation. That's why I think he hates sovereign grace theology so much. It has nothing to do with it secretly being Calvinism. I think that's just an excuse. Because the way that the sovereign gracer is making an argument from scripture is causing him to doubt his salvation because he can't fully qualify or understand why the Bible would use terms like election or predestination if free will is the best thing since sliced bread because he's just been told believe in free will or you're a heretic. He hasn't actually been taught to understand it properly. And I'm I've never really understood that because while I don't claim sovereign grace theology and I wouldn't call free will a heresy, that that's far too conjectural. >> [sighs and gasps] >> The The idea of predestination and election to me is actually a very comforting idea. It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable because it speaks to the very intentional certain purposeful way in which God saves his people rather than it just being a hopeful accident like in a casino or something. But there are certain topics that are just off-limits because they they make Christians feel uncomfortable about their hobby horse. Whether that's the nature of God's election or whether a true believer would always believe or the Romans 11 confession or can a saved person take the mark of the beast? The These are subjects that make people feel uncomfortable because it's it's an uncomfortable noise in their echo chamber. And so our reaction naturally is to lash out at the people who pop our bubble and quote their other verses and give their alternative explanation >> [gasps] >> that we maybe don't really understand or can't explain very well. So by calling them all unsaved, hellbound, devil reprobates and joining in a bandwagon of repeatedly calling them reprobates it helps us to collectively feel better about ourselves and what we believe. As if by calling them unsaved, we've somehow made it true by declaring it. So therefore, we must be in the right because they're unsaved. So, if they're challenging us, we must be saved by contrast. It It's all a psychological trick to make us feel better about ourselves and our current belief system. But, it doesn't really matter how many videos you make condemning every other YouTuber under the sun and point out in your echo chamber, "Oh, look, here's another person who doesn't believe what I believe because I have very niche belief system. It's outrageous. This must be another person going to hell." Because those people that you're condemning, they still have subscribers. They still carry on as they were. The ones that make money continue to make money. They never repent and say, "Sorry, yes, so-and-so called me a child of the devil on the internet. So, thank you for doing that. You've helped me to realize that what you said must be true then because if it wasn't true, I wouldn't be hellbound and unsaved and you wouldn't be calling me that." It It doesn't happen, does it? And even if you do that, you're not addressing his objections from scripture. You're not addressing his interpretations. And even if you do address his concerns, guess what? He still doesn't repent. And calling him an unsaved devil still doesn't really change any outcome. So, if all you're really doing is putting other people down constantly to feel better about yourself, I suspect the reason why you might be doing that is because you are secretly scared. You are scared that your doctrine might not actually be true. You are scared that your opponent might be right about that passage or he might have a point. Or you are scared that even though you shout loudly about grace, you maybe don't fully understand it. Or you don't fully appreciate it. Or you are just scared of verses that you don't understand yet. You're scared that maybe the Bible doesn't support your soteriology perhaps or perhaps it calls some of it into question. >> [sighs and gasps] >> Now, if you want to say, "Well, that's that's a load of rubbish, David. You you call yourself No Nonsense Christianity. You're just talking a bunch of nonsense in this video." Well, I submit to you that if what I'm saying is false, you don't need to be offended by it then. And if you're offended by it, it might be because the shoe fits. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm just asking the question so you can examine yourself. Because you're not being that much more reasonable than the legalist. You just accidentally happen to have the correct roughly correct belief system at least. Yeah, you can quote mine verses. Well, so can they. We we can all quote mine verses. That's not explaining anything. You know, they have no idea what run the race means, but they can quote that verse at you to tell you why OSAS is false. And you see, this might not necessarily be something that you're consciously aware of all of the time. I'm not saying that you did this because you had an evil sinister motivation. I think this is just something that we subconsciously do. I think this happens in the secular world about things that have nothing to do with religion and things. I think it's just a a part of the human sinful condition. And it's only when somebody points it out that you either get offended by the facts or you think about it and maybe you do something about it. Now, if somebody is watching this and thinking, "Well, you're only saying this, David, because probably you're just a secret hellbound devil who's unsaved." Well, if you want to say that, I submit to you that you are really all you're doing is you're putting up the same defense barriers that I'm tearing down. You're you're getting defensive, and that's why you feel the need to think that way. And again, you're you're assuming motivation on my part that I just wanted to do this to upset you or hurt you, when that's not the goal of this video. So, we end with this question then, well, what what should I do with this information? Well, if you are confident about what you believe, and you verily believe that it's true to the utmost, you have no reason to be afraid of people who don't agree with you. You have no reason to be offended by this video. You have no reason to be offended by the millions of Christians that don't believe your niche belief system. You [snorts] have no reason to lose sleep or be angry about all the millions of heretics that the Bible already told us would exist anyway. >> [sighs and gasps] >> You know, the Apostle Paul was a very positive person. I think that comes across very obvious in his epistles. You don't need to understand the Greek to perceive that. Because even when it's translated, it comes across the same way. >> [sighs and gasps] >> Even when he criticized behaviors in the church, or he criticized behaviors of other people, or he criticized doctrinal ideas, there is still a very positive, upbeat overtone to his letters. And I think that's why we all love them so much, even if we don't realize that's why. He wasn't afraid or disturbed of every works salvation Christian in existence who preached something that contradicted what he believed. He wasn't afraid of the Jews knowing Old Testament scripture and pelting him with it. He didn't feel the need to write hundreds and hundreds of epistles completely littering our Bible telling us the name of every single person in every single Pharisee and why he was a complete hellbound devil for the exact same heresy that I already exposed 50 times before. I mean, the Bible would be incredibly boring and uninformative if that's how it read. >> [gasps and sighs] >> If I wanted the holy scripture of my religion to just say the same thing over and over and over again and not really teach me that much. I could have just been a Muslim or a Buddhist because that's exactly what their scripture does. It's incredibly repetitive. But the Bible is too creative and educational to do that. It's too smart. Don't be afraid of verses that you don't fully understand yet or you can't fully explain. >> [sighs and gasps] >> If you don't spend every moment and every hour of your life arguing with people on YouTube or Discord and having debates with the same reprobates over and over again, you don't really find that you have to explain those scriptures to other people very often. Okay? Now, I don't do live debates as most of you know, so I don't engage with Charlie Michaels. I don't really need to argue with him about whether believe really means believe. I don't really care whether he rejects it and I don't spend a lot of time talking about him. So, if you're not constantly obsessed with arguing against Satan, you're not really going to find yourself needing to argue against Satan very often. So, it doesn't really matter if you're not very good at arguing with Satan, does it? I've watched some videos about Christian deconstruction when and and I use the term Christian loosely, obviously, where a Christian deconverts from the religion, okay? Not saying it's like a saved person. I'm just saying somebody leaves Christianity. And a lot of what they describe about how the Christians around them react is that there is a lot of gaslighting coming from the the other Christians when they abandon their religion. >> [gasps] >> Because those Christians feel like their their religion is offended. Their belief system that makes them feel safe becomes threatened or offended. So, they have to resort to this gaslighting to try and make the deconvert feel bad. But the very gaslighting is the very reason why they're deconverting in the first place because they see what you're doing, you know. Well, you were never really a real Christian. You deserve to go to hell. But it's your choice not to go there. As if like just saying it's a choice will just make them choose the right thing. Well, that's not how it works, okay? And I don't That's not the subject of this video, but I'm just telling you what I've looked at when I when I've heard their reasoning for leaving, okay? Because a lot of those Christians, they they don't really know why they believe what they believe or why their version of Christianity is true or why Christianity is true over atheism or something. They have absolutely no idea. They're They're just told what to believe and that helps them make it through the day. But Christ gave us everlasting life, which means we have an everlasting peace. And if you just take 2 seconds to think about the language of some passages, it's not very difficult to see why legalism is false, so we don't need to be that worried about it. So, for example, I'm not really worried if a works hard carpet bombs my channel comments about how we're being sanctified when I just look down at my King James Bible that says we are sanctified because that already tells me then that what he believes is false. I don't need to do a whole video telling everybody else what a devil he is to make me feel better about myself. Now, if you're thinking, "Well, come on, David. You know, we've seen the comment threads in your previous videos. We know what an absolute cesspit they are and you don't block them and and you are one rude mean bastard." Well, I know, but the things I am describing in this video are a fairly recent realization and this is not something where you can just hear this and immediately start changing your behavior. You know, it takes time to train yourself and and to realize this and to act on that realization. So, I'm trying to change my approach, but it's probably not going to happen overnight because, you know, that the flesh is there, right? The flesh just overcomes you sometimes. But, on my notification feed on my YouTube homepage, I see various free graces and hyper graces calling so-and-so a wicked heretic, blah, blah, blah, but none of those videos ever actually helped me to understand why the loss of salvation go-to passages are wrongfully interpreted. None of them. >> [sighs and gasps] >> And sometimes I will see somebody do a video on explaining a certain passage or a certain phrase. And it might be like a 5-minute sermonette where they spend less time explaining the phrase and actually more time running off to a bunch of other random passages that are not part of the YouTube video title. And they're not even proving that that passage they're running off to has any relevance whatsoever to the one that you're supposed to be explaining. And so I still walk away thinking, "I still don't understand what you just said." But as I've been working on the scripts for the OSAS documentary that I'm working on, I've had to take a lot of time to look at those passages so that I can explain it to you in a way that you will be able to see for yourself. It's not just me saying things. And that that's quite a a difficult thing to do sometimes. And you'll see the explanation when the film is released, of course, unless you've already looked at some of the scripts, you've already got an idea. But I just wish that like some of the stuff that I'm going to point out in that film, somebody would have just pointed out to me years ago instead of just anathematizing everybody else for challenging OSAS. If somebody would just explain those passages properly instead of explaining them like a it would have saved me so much headache. It would have just saved me so many problems. And it would have saved me so much faithlessness faithlessness and doubt. And so in that film, I'm not going to be spending a lot of I'm not going to be spending time calling other people hell bound unsaved devils for rejecting OSAS. Now, there are a couple of bits where I'm going to show you some clips of what people have said, but I'm not going to make personal comments about Michael Brown or any any of the people from the anti-OSAS documentary. Okay, I'm not going to directly comment on their salvation. I'm not going to directly call them unsaved, okay? I know some of you are thinking it loudly, but I'm not going to say it, all right? I won't even be calling them confused false prophets like I did in the James Do documentary because the more I study those passages that they use to teach loss of salvation, the more I realize how absurd their interpretation is anyway. So, I don't even feel threatened by them using those passages anymore. I don't feel the need to call them an unsaved devil to feel better about myself because I've already established now that what they believe is wrong, and they're not going to listen to me when I explain to them what it actually means anyway. So, why do I really care whether they're an unsaved devil or not? I don't feel the need to be that angry and hateful towards them even though my flesh wants to be because at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to me whether they're going to repent or not. It's not my salvation on the line if they don't repent. And they're not deceiving me, so why do I take personal offense that somebody thinks that run the race is clear proof that you can lose salvation. To me, that's just absurd. That's not going to deceive me. It's not going to make me doubt my beliefs. So, why am I all that offended by it? Why am I all that bothered about it? And yeah, I could call him an unsaved hell bound devil to warn other people, I suppose, but all of the people that love him and adore him, that's just going to offend them and not actually cause them to repent anyway because it's just poking at an idol that they're not going to get rid of. And if I explain what the Bible does say without upsetting them, and they're not going to receive it, well, chances are calling people and say devils isn't going to change their mind, either. Just a guess. I could be wrong, of course. If the apostles wanted us to behave like that, then the epistles would have been written like that. The The we would we would just have hundreds of epistles in the Bible about every unsaved Pharisee under the sun with the same heresy being mentioned over and over again. Strangely enough, that's not how the Bible communicated the truth to us. So, I don't really see why it would work for me, either. Like I'm smarter than the apostles or something. So, when somebody wants to tell me that I'm a heretic and we have to do works, let him be. Set your anger free.