Radio Free Geneva: The Choice Meats Analygesis of Leighton Flowers in John 10

You absolutely hear people that are Calvinist harp on this.

Bah! Bah! God's suffering! God's suffering! Bah! Suffering! Suffering! Suffering!

They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a Biblical truth.

At the tomb of Lazarus, Jesus says, Lazarus, come out! And Lazarus said, I can't. I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. Does he mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ?

Then you take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin. It shows in this kind of sequential format and...

Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things? Um, no.

Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.

Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief.

A verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It wouldn't make any sense to him.

A self-righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk.

You need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism. Now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to...

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge.

Don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

You're not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat.

From our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for his own eternal glory.

Ah, yes. Ah, yes. It's been a while. It has been a while since we have let that brother out of his cave to do his thing. But there it is. Every time I hear just a couple of those quotes, I just start losing it.

Of course, the middle knowledge one will live forever. There's no question about that. But choice meats are particularly appropriate for the program today. Because that's what we're going to be looking at.

Look, could I fill an hour and a half with just stuff over the weekend? Easily. Oh, yeah. Sure. You bet. And by the way, I would like to think that video that I saw of Los Angeles at sunset on July 4th means something.

It just simply means that they're all just going, forget you. We're going to do this anyways. Though personally, I've never heard so many fireworks in Phoenix. I mean, it sounded like a war zone, didn't it?

I mean, I don't know, maybe not out your direction, but it sure was. Oh, really? Wow. Yeah, well, unfortunately, people were doing it like in the street, in the alleyway, in the places where you can catch everybody else's houses on fire.

But anyway, it was quite the interesting weekend. We could fill the time, and we have other programs to do. We'll get to it. There have been some fascinating developments. I just saw a fascinating development from a Black Lives Matter leader about the genetic superiority and supremacy of black people.

Yes, indeed, there is such a thing as black supremacy. And this is real black supremacy, not the fake stuff, the white supremacy fake stuff they do. This is actual people saying, yeah, we're genetically superior.

So exactly like the KKK and stuff like that, except you just reverse the colors. So, yeah, it's out there. We'll get to it. But what happened was, I think, right as I was, I think this was just yesterday, I got a tweet.

And most of you know that Apology of Church meets in the afternoons. We rent our facilities, and so we meet at 4 o 'clock. Man, we went long last night. Jeff, bro, we got to work on that time thing. Yeah, yeah, we got out of there about 6 .40, almost three hours by the time we wrapped stuff up.

But we meet in the afternoons. And so I got something, I think early afternoon, if I recall correctly, from Georgie Borman, who has a webcast, the 180-degree cast with Georgie Borman. So this was an interview with, of course, our dearly beloved Leighton Flowers.

Just such a fan of the program, may be doing something live right now, as he has done in the past. He may be extremely talented, but I don't know how you can actually listen to what someone's saying and respond to it instantaneously at the same time.

But who knows, he might be doing it, he's done it before. And we'll probably go for a number of hours after we're finished if he does. Anyway, had the dearly beloved Leighton Flowers on, ex-Calvinist explains why he changed his mind.

And so Georgie sent me a tweet, just, yeah, this is 23 hours ago. Well, when I saved this, so it was right around the afternoon, noontime yesterday. Sent it to you, aomin .org, and it says, I know Dr. Oakley1689, that's me, and Leighton Flowers react to each other's content a lot.

Well, yeah, I suppose. We actually do all sorts of other topics too, unlike Leighton. And you might be interested in his discussion of passages in John 6 and John 10, starting at about minute 43. To be quite honest, I found it challenging.

And so, you know, I hesitated a moment, and then I grabbed it, and then Kelly and I listened to it as we were driving to and from church, because it's a long ways across the valley to East Mesa from where we live, so plenty of time to listen to something.

And there wasn't anything new. Certainly anyone who's familiar with Leighton Flowers and his quote-unquote provisionism and the rather unique perspectives that he presents is familiar with this. But given that Georgie Borman said, I found this challenging.

I thought, well, all right, it's been a while. Let's crack open the Greek New Testament, and let's deal with especially John chapter 10. That's a beautiful passage, gives us the opportunity of delving into it, and then responding to what Leighton has to say.

And so I would invite you to take your scriptures. For those of you who are not familiar, some of you may have been coming to watch The Dividing Line just over the past number of months, and so you've not seen this segment before or heard that theme song, probably wondering what in the world is going on.

Radio Free Geneva is where we respond to attacks upon the Reformed faith. Now, initially, we were responding to really bad attacks upon the Reformed faith, and we will be perfectly honest when we say that is the majority.

The majority of attacks on the Reformed faith are not overly concerned about accurate representation of the Reformed faith or have a real understanding of what's being said. And so the first couple of years was really focused upon that because there's just so much of it to respond to.

But then we started responding to some of the better people, some of the more in-depth topics. I've forgotten how many different interpretations, for example, of John chapter 6 we have analyzed over the past...

We started this, what, about 2004-ish? Somewhere around there. So, you know, 15, 16 years we've been doing Radio Free Geneva, and we've lost track, literally, of the number of interpretations that you could put together just simply from John chapter 6.

That's not because there's anything unclear about John chapter 6. That's what we do is we go through the text and demonstrate, well, see, they missed this here, they're incorrect about this, their assertion here misses that, whatever else it might be.

But we examine the claims that are made against Reformed theology exegetically on the basis of the original language texts. We are not the only people who can do that, but in my humble opinion, certainly having worked in this area for many decades now, it does seem to me that Reformed exegetes have a significantly higher level of consistency.

In fact, that was one of the humorous but very serious quotations in the Radio Free Geneva theme was with Leighton Flowers. And I asked him during our debate in 2015 in Dallas, are you basically using the same hermeneutical methodology?

Are you interpreting scripture consistently in the same fashion when we look at the deity of Christ, the resurrection, inspiration of scripture, issues like this? Are you using a different methodology in your interpretation of Romans 9, your interpretation of passages relating to this particular subject that you do when looking at other things?

And basically said, well, yeah. I had asked, is this the same methodology? And he said, well, no. So he was saying, yeah, we use a different way of doing things. And that to me was the end of the debate for anybody who's looking for consistency, recognizes a consistency as a methodology of knowing truth.

But we pressed on from there. Anyway, so that is relevant to looking at Leighton Flowers' claims today. And so what happened was Georgie read from, well, in fact, I'll play something for you here. Let me do that down.

What she she, interestingly enough, made reference to my fellow pastor, Jeff Durbin, in regards to this. So let me let me play for you what sort of introduced this this whole thing. So here we go.

Like John 6, for instance, you know, I think I heard I think I heard Jeff Durbin say it was either John 6 or John 10. He goes, this is 110 proof Calvinism, which is which is which is quite the claim. But, you know, for the for the listener.

So 110 proof Calvinism from from Jeff Durbin regarding either John 6 or John 10, either one of them. I'll I'll I'll defend either one of them as 110 proof Calvinism. But that's what led this led to the discussion in the course of the interview.

And so before we listen to what Leighton Flowers had to say about John chapter 10, I think it'd be a good idea for us to actually spend some time looking at John chapter 10. It is a tremendous text. And just as Leighton said, we'll go to the website and get this, that and the other thing.

I just a few years ago preached through John chapter 10 and John chapter 11 as part of a sermon series on based on P45, which is. There it's hard to do it there. That's in fact, that's the John 10 passage right there on the wall.

People are always asking, what's the thing on the wall behind you? That is a page from P45. And that is the that is the Good Shepherd section right there that is on the wall back there. That's one of the largest sections, largest the physical pages that have survived of P45.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the manuscript, especially in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts is only a maybe half that size. So you get a lot of missing text. But anyway, so I was preaching a series using P45 as the foundation and it contains portions, tiny portions from John four and five.

I had done those and then we were doing John 10, 11. And so I have addressed these issues more fully in those contexts, but we will look at them today. So John chapter 10, you're probably familiar with with the text.

You have here the issue of the shepherd and the sheep. Jesus is the Good Shepherd. And so he he starts off with that assertion. He says, truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door and fold the sheep but climbs up some other way is a he is a thief and a robber.

But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. To him, the doorkeeper opens and the shepherd sheep hear his voice and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. Now, I don't have time to go into all of the very interesting background discussions.

There have been many people who have gone and observed shepherding, especially as it's still practiced in the ways that it was in the days of Jesus. The common folds, the fact that shepherds would bring their their flocks and all of a sudden you've just got all these sheep in the same in the same common fold.

And yet the shepherd could then come having transacted his business, done whatever he needed to do and would call his sheep by name and his flock would come out of the rest that were in the common pen where they would be being held.

So they know his voice. To him, the doorkeeper opens and the sheep hear his voice and he calls on sheep by name and leads them out. And so there is an intimate relationship that exists. But it's obvious, I would think, that sheep do not choose shepherds.

You do not have a situation where you have a line of shepherds and the sheep are paraded by and the sheep, you know, look over each shepherd and a little bit tall, a little bit swarthy. No, I'm not doing that one.

And then, oh, this one's good. I'm going to I'm going to know behind all of this would be the obvious reality that the shepherd is in charge of the sheep, that the shepherd chooses the sheep. The shepherd leads the sheep wherever the shepherd wants to take the sheep.

The shepherd's in control of the shepherd sheep relationship. And even when a sheep is lost, as in some of the parables of Jesus, this is because sheep are not the brightest creatures God ever placed upon his planet.

I've never seen a relative IQ analysis of sheep over against other animals, but I don't think they do well. If we somehow figured out exactly how to do that and compare it with others, I think they'd be really down toward the bottom quarter of commensurate wildlife, shall we say.

And so it's very, very plain, very, very obvious that it is the shepherd who chooses the sheep, the shepherd that is in charge of the sheep. The shepherd is the one who defines his flock. This is going to become important because one of the elements of Leighton Flower's presuppositional methodology of getting around just doing straight exegesis is he is going to, again, as he always does, utilize analogies to introduce parameters into the text that are not in the text initially.

And so what we're going to get here is that sheep, the sheep in Jesus' context, are actually Jews who have shown themselves to be more godly than other Jews in that they have listened to the voice of Jesus' Father.

So, in other words, these are obedient Jews. These are the Jews who are obedient to God's word that has come from the Father, and because they've listened to the Father, then they follow the Son. And so he wants to place, as he has to, his is a very man-centered, totally man-centered idea when it comes to how the identity of the saved and the lost is determined.

It's all of man. It is not of God. God tries to save everybody, but he cannot. It's up to man. And so it is totally and completely in the human realm. Even more so, and he did in this interview, even more so than in the Arminian perspective, because in the Arminian perspective, you have prevenient grace.

And at least in the Arminian perspective, that's an actual exercise of supernatural power. Now, I would say prevenient grace is to be found nowhere in Scripture. It is a complete misunderstanding of what grace, the power of grace in Scripture.

But at least the Arminians understood enough about biblical anthropology, understood enough about what Jesus taught and what the apostles taught about the deadness of man and sin, which is not an inability to respond to God.

It is an inability to submit to God. Mankind in a state of spiritual deadness always responds to God, but he does so negatively by suppressing the knowledge of God. Again, Leighton presents himself as a former Calvinist.

The people who knew him during that period of time go, really? We didn't notice it. And this comes out in his repetitious misrepresentation of Reformed theology and saying, well, they just believe that mankind cannot respond to God.

No, mankind responds to God all the time, always negatively, as a slave to sin. That's the whole point. It's not that he's just a corpse sitting there doing nothing. There is a negative response. It is a suppression.

This is well known. Anyone who was once Reformed would know this. But anyway, so the important thing here is that Leighton wants to, by analogy, bring in the presupposition that sheep choose the shepherd and that sheep are sheep by their own nature.

They are the good people rather than the goats. And that's because they listen. They're listening to the fathers. That means they're obedient to the Old Testament scriptures. And now Jesus comes along.

Then they are going to be hearing Jesus' voice as they heard the father's voice. That's not anywhere in John 10. There is nothing where sheep heard one shepherd's voice, and then there's a new shepherd, but that shepherd speaks the same words, and therefore they follow that shepherd because it's the same voice.

None of that. The emphasis in John 10, just as it is in John 6, sovereignty of God, initiative of God, not just in putting out a gospel and then leaving it up to man, but in actually accomplishing salvation.

So that idea would just never have suggested itself. When he puts forth all his own, his own, notice his own, not those who have chosen him. When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.

A stranger they simply will not follow will flee from him because they do not know the voice of strangers. And so there is this intimate knowledge of the shepherd on the part of the sheep because the shepherd has formed one flock.

This figure of speech, Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which he was saying to them. So Jesus said to them again, truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. So as John 10 functions in the gospel, all the way back in beginning in really chapter five at least, you have Jesus making himself the central aspect of his teaching.

His person, who he is, becomes very plain in chapter six, and that's where the offense comes in. Jesus says, unless it's granted you the father, you're not going to come to me. Unlike any of the Old Testament prophets, Jesus makes himself central to the message because of who he is.

He is the incarnate one. But he's also the door here. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

Again, a statement that could never be made by a mere prophet. These are blasphemous words, unless Jesus is who Jesus claims to be. Very, very important to know these things. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.

I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Now, again, I am rushing through this because we want to get to the key texts, but we want background as well. Who is they? Who is they? I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

So, it's a very different thing to say that Jesus came to... And remember, John 10 comes after John 6. We've already had the teaching that the Father has a people that he gives to the Son. He entrusts their salvation to the Son and that the Son will never, ever fail to bring them into the fullness of eternal life.

That's the message of John 6. So, the they are the sheep. And the they would not be... The original reader would never have thought of they are the ones who, because of their goodness, have been identified as sheep.

They made themselves sheep by their goodness. They made themselves sheep by their listening to the Father and now listening to the Son. If they are the sheep, I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly.

So, I would imagine a provisionist would say, well, this could be for anyone. Which means, in the provisionist scheme, that Jesus came that every person might have life and have it abundantly. But so far, that has not worked out very well.

Percentage-wise. A majority have rejected that particular message, at least to this point in time. Just point that out in passing. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Now, there is clearly a specificity in the definition of who the sheep are. And the Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Now, a universal atonement proponent would say, well, he doesn't just lay down his life for the sheep.

He lays down his life for all sheep everywhere. And goats, for that matter. But notice this comes around the heels of the intimate, they know me, I know them. They hear my voice and they follow me and they won't follow anyone else.

I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Here is a positive statement of substitutionary atonement for a specific group. The universalists say, yeah, that is improved, it's only for that group.

That results in, as we have pointed out in our rebuttals of David Allen, that then results in the impersonal nature of a universal atonement. And the non-accomplished aspect of a universal atonement.

He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. Please notice it says owner.

This is not, literally it is, they are his own idia. So that's the same term that Jesus uses of his relationship with the Father. It's an intimate relationship. They are his own sheep in comparison to the hired hand that does not have that intimate connection.

So, just as the Father has a certain people he entrusts to the Son, and draws them to the Son, and the result of that is that they are raised up to eternal life, in John chapter 6. Here too, the owner of the sheep is the one who has sovereignty over them.

And so, the hired hand flees because he is a hired hand, he is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd in contrast to that. I know my own and my own know me. And so, I am the good shepherd, Ta-Emma are simply the ones of me, so my own, and Ta-Emma, those ones who I own, know me as well.

So, there is a personal, intimate relationship that exists between the sheep and the shepherd. I don't know how those who hold to universal, impersonal atonement can figure this out. Because this would only be true after the free will choice of the individual to unite themselves to Christ, or whatever else it might be.

And then notice the parallel, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. And so, an amazing parallel that will then be pointed out even more fully in John chapter 17, the High Priestly Prayer.

Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, the intimate relationship between Father and Son, we've already seen in John chapter 6, the Father and the Son's intimate relationship and bringing about the salvation of God's people, that's going to become extremely strong.

Probably the strongest place I can think of, certainly in Johannine Corpus, 6, 10, 17, but just explicitly stated here in John chapter 10, is the unity of the Father and the Son in accomplishing the salvation of God's people.

And that is stated with, I lay down my life for the sheep. So, this is personal. He knows for whom he gives his life. The provisionist who affirms exhaustive foreknowledge of future events has to say, well, Christ only knows this because he looks down the corridors of time and sees the free will actions of men.

But it doesn't change the reality that when Jesus says, I lay down my life for the sheep, he is saying, I do not lay down my life for the non-sheep. Now, you can make the identity a human determined thing.

It's going to go against scripture, but you can do it if you want. But the fact is, a distinction is made in Jesus' own statement. I lay down my life for the sheep and the universal atonement advocate has to say, well, yeah, but he could have just as easily said, I lay down my life for all sheep or for sheeps and goats.

I lay down my life for all quadrupeds. That would have been, that would have all quadrupeds, kitties and doggies and sheep and bovine humanity. I mean, the whole nine yards, that would really show the greatest level of love.

Not really. Instead, I lay down my life for the sheep in this context is addressed to a particular people. We've already, remember, John chapter 10 does not exist by itself. We know what's coming toward the end of the chapter.

We know there's going to be conflict. There's already been huge conflict beginning in chapter six. And chapter eight, it leads to people picking up stones to stone Jesus. Chapter nine, you've got the blind man and they're really unhappy about what Jesus did in that situation.

And here we are in chapter 10 and we know what's going to happen down in the, you know, in verses 30 and following. When Jesus proclaims his deity in light of his oneness with the father in bringing about the salvation of God's people.

They're going to pick up stones to stone him again. And so this is coming and he is going to be making a distinction between those who are his sheep and those who are about to pick up stones to stone him.

He says, I have other sheep which are not of this fold. I must bring them also and they will hear my voice and they'll become one flock with one shepherd. Now, there were numerous instances in the Old Testament text where the idea of shepherd and flock Yahweh with Israel was already an established paradigm of description.

But here you have the Gentile mission. Most people would recognize this is the Gentile mission. The reality that this body, this one flock that is going to be created is not made up of only Jews, but that the Gentiles are going to be the recipients of this great blessing.

And that's an extremely important element of what this text is all about. But notice, they will hear my voice. So their relationship to the shepherd is not a secondary one. It's not a lesser one. There is no basis for any kind of idea of a lower Gentile Christianity, a higher Jewish Christianity, none of these things.

Instead, they become one flock, one shepherd, not multiple flocks. And for this reason, the Father loves me because I lay down my life so that I may take it again. For this reason, the Father loves me.

Now, is this the only reason? No, but this is a specific reason that the Father loves the Son is because of the Son's voluntary self-giving. That he lays down his life in order that, again, I might receive it.

So, there is, in the eternal purpose of God, the resurrection is just as important as the laying down. And this is in the context of the sheep and the shepherd. Now, verses 17 and 18 are the two verses that I strongly recommend you emphasize in speaking to your Muslim friends.

Because it is the content of 17 and 18 that is missing from their understanding of the cross. For this reason, the Father loves me because I lay down my life so that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down.

I give it of myself, op ml2. This authority, I have authority to lay it down. I have authority to receive it back again, this commandment I received from my Father. So, what needs to be seen is the voluntary nature of the self-giving of Christ.

His life is not taken from him. This is, of course, one of the arguments that is made by leftists and liberals against the consistency of the New Testament. They will say that's not the view of Jesus you have in Mark.

This is only the view of Jesus you have in John. I would firmly disagree with this. In both the reading of Mark and John at that point. But there is no question that in John, you have the statement, no one has taken it from me.

Now, who can make that kind of a statement? Only God can make that kind of a statement. God is the giver and granter of life. Jesus started claiming in John chapter 5 that the Son gives life to whomever he will.

There is a consistency throughout the Gospel of John on this issue. He has authority to lay it down. He has authority to take it up. And he does it on his own initiative. There is an element of freedom in Jesus' self-giving.

This is not something he is forced to do. There is perfect unity in the intention of the Father and the Son. But the Son does not do this against his will. You might say, what about in the garden? You're misunderstanding what's going on in the garden.

The heavy weight upon Jesus in the garden is becoming sin. Not the giving of his life. It is the transactional nature of bearing the sins of God's people in his own body. The one who has eternally been holy taking on that sin.

That is the issue that is to be found there. So a division occurred among the Jews because these words, many of them saying he has a demon is insane. Why do you listen to him? Others are saying these are not the sayings of one demon possessed.

A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he? That's taking us back to John chapter 9. That then becomes the literary context, not the spatial or temporal context. Because it says at that time the Feast of Dedication took place in Jerusalem.

So what was the exact time relationship between the beginning of the chapter and this? We're not told. But it came about then that you have the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. And it was winter.

And Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. The portico of Solomon. Again, a good, wonderful historical location. We know where this is. The Jews then gathered around him. And literally you'll see they surrounded him.

This is purposeful. You go that way, we'll go this way. You cut him off that way, I'll cut him off this way. And we'll have him surrounded. They surrounded him. And they were saying to him. So this was multiple people at once coming after him at the same time.

How long will you raise up our soul? That's literally what. How long will you raise up our soul? That is, keep us in suspense. If you are HaChristos, if you are the Christ, then tell us openly or plainly.

And so they want grounds of accusation. Especially to bring to the Romans. And Jesus' answer to them is, I told you and you are not believing. The works that I do in the name of my Father, these are the ones testifying concerning me.

So this is going back to a number of the themes already brought out. Beginning in chapter 5. Found again in chapter 8. And now finding a summary statement in chapter 10. That to the Jewish person with the scriptures in their hand.

Who are not looking to seek glory for themselves. They would be able to see who it was they were speaking with. But they won't do that. And then we're told in verse 26. But, we're told in verse 25. You are not believing.

This is the same phraseology used in John chapter 6. You do not believe. And that was said to the men who rode across the lake. That's what Jesus said to the ones who came to him. And rode across the lake to find him.

And he says, you're not believers. And that's what prompted John 6 .37. All the Father gives me will come to me. When it comes to me, I'll never cast out. But, you're not believers. And so here you have verse 25.

You're not believers. And then verse 26. But, you are not believers because you are not of my sheep. You are not of my sheep. Now, the only way this works. The only way this works. You see, no one in that day would have brought a western individualistic methodology of interpretation to the idea of the sheep and the shepherd.

It would have never crossed anyone's mind that the sheep are autonomous. That the sheep are sheep based upon personal merit. That they chose to be God's sheep over against something else. And, when it says, but you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.

What Leighton's system does is turns that upside down. Because you choose not to believe, you are not my sheep. That's not what Jesus said. See how trying to force a God-centered text through a man-centered sieve results in a royal mess.

A truly royal mess. What Jesus says is, but you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. So, the whole idea that, well, they're sheep because they were the better Jews who were already listening to the Father.

And because they were listening to the Father, then they choose to follow Jesus too. That's not what he says. When talking to unbelievers, he doesn't say, all you have to do is start following the Father and then you'll start following me and you'll become my sheep.

He says, you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. Now, again, we're jumping into the middle of a text. Gospel of John. Back in John 8, 43, Jesus had said, the reason you do not understand what I'm saying is because you don't belong to God.

You don't belong to God. His words were foreign to them and there was a fundamental reason for that. And this is a biblical theme. In 1 Corinthians chapter 1, the Apostle Paul says, you know, the message of the cross is to them their perishing foolishness, but to we who are being saved is the power of God.

So, it's your nature that determines how you interact with that gospel message. If you're amongst those who are perishing, it's foolishness. Being saved, power of God. And then he lays later out, he says, you know, to the Jews, the stumbling block, to the Gentiles, foolishness, but to the called.

Those that God calls to himself, whether Jew or Gentile, Christ, the power of God, Christ, the wisdom of God. So, it is that divine action that determines the response to the gospel message. And in this case, you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.

My sheep are not my sheep because they believe. My sheep are sheep and because they're sheep, it's their nature to believe. So, the man-centered system has to find, has to kick open a door someplace to let man's free will in to regain control of everything.