Quick Thoughts on Ohio and the Pope, then Continuation of Radio Free Geneva

Well greetings welcome to the divine line we're gonna have radio free Geneva starting up here in a few minutes Don't worry.

We will have the full theme song for those of you who are addicts Tim Bushong fans and Tim's mom his second cousin.

They they like it, too But anyway, we will be doing radio free

Geneva will be continuing and finishing the Response to Jason Bretta on John chapter 6 but Just needed to and I'm going to Expand on these things tomorrow, hopefully in a sort of remote controlled version of the dividing line,

I think anyway Obviously everyone is talking about what happened on Tuesday and Let me just say that in You know just today

I've been trying to I tried to reason with a millennial looking maybe younger woman on Twitter There simply isn't any moral formation there's no ethical foundation in the younger generations, they just if they are a product of The public indoctrination system

That part of their makeup has been Not just twisted but done away with and The idea of thinking

Within proper categories making proper category connections avoiding improper category connections.

It's just not even there I Asked her

You know one of the first basic questions you have to ask is The child in the womb human canine bovine feline human and She knew where you could tell she knew exactly where I was going so she was just like I'm not even get into that besides you don't care about the babies after they're born and No adult no rational person reasons like that that every

Rational person who has been trained to think logically to understand the rules of logic and argumentation

Knows that that's a completely invalid argument, but all you have to do is watch pretty much every single video that anyone makes on a college campus and You realize that the next generations don't think that way

And and don't care that You can then point out the utter irrationality if they don't care

It does not have any emotional impact upon them. Therefore. It's not really relevant and so when you look at the breakdown of the vote in Ohio specifically and everybody's talking about how much more money the other side spent and and of course that the language of The amendment is just utterly laughable.

I mean, it's it's completely Orwellian and again, the next generations don't care

Oh Orwellian, I Really haven't read that don't really nothing about it.

So, okay. I don't really care But it is I mean anyone who calls abortion any kind of reproductive health care

Is just not a person who has who has any serious thinking capacity at all

But they don't care and They vote they're not caring and when you look at the breakdown the only people who slightly voted against this this

Shall we call fire down from heaven upon the entire state of Ohio measure? Was my generation well, actually,

I guess I'm not in that generation It was the 64 year olds and above.

I'm almost there Those only people that voted against it as a as a group

And you get down to the 18 to 29 year olds and it's like 87 90 percent something like that and How do you get that kind of continuity well, these are the people that have come from that educate that indoctrination system and So we shouldn't be shocked or surprised.

Everybody's like I just can't believe this. I can and unless there is a

Major major change. I mean we're we're talking supernatural Third Great Awakening type change

Sorry, it's done it's over with as long as these these people are voting and they have no moral or ethical character whatsoever

There you go, that's that's how the gulags get formed it's this is what history tells us this is what history tells us and These people would vote in a second to imprison anyone who disagreed with them

Because it's morally good because morally means what feels right and So we'll talk more about it tomorrow, but it just It didn't stun me it didn't shock me it just reminded me that we've been saying for a long time

What's it gonna look like to live through the transitionary period? from a system where we had laws

To a system that's based upon the whims of man. Well, we're finding out no one could really

I mean you could predict certain elements of it But exactly how it's gonna work out at what speed at what time on what subjects no one could really tell and now we're seeing it

Now we're seeing it. That's what we're watching. And so parents we have to be explaining to our children

What is worth Giving up so much of our stuff for Is is it worthwhile to suffer for truth that no one anymore even cares whether it's truth or not.

Well Might want to read a few sections out of Jeremiah and Ezekiel few of the minor prophets that directly address

Such things but we need to be doing that with our kids or in my case grandkids things like that Next thing real quick Before we go to Radio Free Geneva The word broke

Not quite 24 hours ago the Vatican has

Announced that Transgender people can be baptized.

They can be godparents and witnesses at church weddings now

Most people outside of Roman Catholicism don't think much about godparents and stuff like that, but the point is

The reason that this was not allowed in the past Was a moral and ethical one.

It was a recognition of the Rebellion inherent in Transgenderism homosexuality issues along those lines and I first saw it being announced by Roman Catholics going.

Are you kidding? because any Roman Catholic that sits back and looks at this and reads any of the interviews

Press conferences and things like that that came out of the Synod which is just the beginning of a process the next one's gonna be next year, but Everybody knows where it's going

You can tell by who was chosen by the presentations by the minimization of Traditional voices it word is that that Francis is

Going to change the way in which his successor is going to be chosen to allow women and Lay people to vote now, by the way up until what was it 10 something?

Middle of the 11th century the Bishop of Rome was always elected by the people of Rome That's that's how it was done

But that of course changed radically for a long period of time So it's not like it's always been the same way, but most

Roman Catholics think that it's been done the same way and When you when you

Think about you know, then he gets to choose who's gonna be involved with that It's it's like he's been watching how elections are done in Maricopa County It's it's the it's

Any hope that conservative Roman Catholics have had That there would be a swing back toward something called orthodoxy

Is being dashed right left and center It's it's a way to make sure and this is how the this is how the left always works

Whether it's in religion or politics look at California. What does California know? What's Colorado doing?

What are all these? monoparty we will make sure the things are going to continue going the way we want them to go and That's what

Francis is doing and Any any conservative Roman Catholic who sits back with any semblance of fairness goes it's obvious where Francis wants to go on issues of human sexuality and Once again, we're back to and what are you supposed to do about it?

and so, you know, I I tweeted the I recall it's a

BBC article on this. I Said Nothing you can do about it you you've bought the system and the system has parameters and Once you say we have an infallible interpreter who in you know embodies tradition and I you know,

I've seen Roman Catholics saying well, you know Holy Spirit will never allow Francis to promulgate area already has already has

Like we point out before even one of the bishops pointed to the change on capital punishment in the

Universal Catholic Catholicism as something to look at in light of a

Change in how the Roman Church views the LGBTQ plus issues

They're the ones that pointed to we didn't we pointed to it too, but y 'all don't care about that You've got people in your own communion going well, hey

That seemed to work pretty well. And you know, it's how our system works so and so What are you supposed to do about it?

Well Trent Horne saw my tweet evidently and He responded and he said

How would scripture answer these questions one can a mentally ill person be baptized to can a mentally ill person be a godparent?

Scripture is silent on godparents as well as specific requirements for baptism. Your solution isn't solo scriptura.

It's your own tradition While Trent that was a faceplant Sorry, bro

No The Only way that that can have any relevance to what

I had posted is If you're making transgenders transgenders Transgenderism a mental illness now,

I would agree That it has characteristics of mental illness

No, no question about it but When I when I went if someone were to ask the question can a mentally ill person be baptized?

That would obviously be a pastoral decision of the elders of a church which by the way is how the

New Testament organized church Elders didn't have all these other offices and hierarchies and stuff.

I wasn't there and No foundation was provided for that. No Qualifications for any of those other positions didn't even have a sacramental priesthood for that matter.

But anyway Uh so it'd be a pastoral matter and It would be the determined.

It would be something that the elders would have to determine as to the mental capacity of the individual

And their desire To follow Christ as best they can so I'm talking down syndrome situations here.

I'm talking, you know that kind of stuff I'm not talking about Manic schizophrenia or people that have to be locked up in a room where they're gonna slice everybody's heads off On Tuesdays, but on Wednesdays, they are passing out jack -tracks.

I'm not talking about that But what does that have to do with someone who is in rebellion

Against God's creative order By claiming to be transgender Now again, we're not talking about quote -unquote intersex people.

We're talking about 99 % of the people who are claiming to be transgender today it's a

Social contagion. It's not a mental illness. It's a an illness of the soul. It's sin.

It's rebellion and The requirement for baptism is well, you know when we baptize the younger kids

One of the things that I had never heard before but I think it's good It's similar to what my parents did with me, but Jeff will say

Is Jesus your boss? Does he get to tell you what to do? That's Lordship of Christ.

Do you? You submit to his ability to define what your life is to be and so That's that's the issue.

Can they understand that what's their answer to that? It's about submitting to the

Lordship of Jesus Christ and again godparents stuff like that Not a part of my my tradition at all, so Don't have any interest in it one way or the other

But to say scripture is silent on godparents. Well, duh, but it's a human tradition as Well as specific requirements for baptism

What's not? We have we have very clear requirements for baptism the object of faith the issue of repentance understanding of sin

It's it's all it's all over. It's it's an axe. It's it's the the assumption of the epistles in regards to when when

Paul for example will make reference to the fact that all of the Christians he's writing to are individuals who have had the same experience of Of Baptism and so he can refer that baptism and say, you know, there's one faith one baptism and you've all been baptized and What does that mean?

There's all sorts of clear obvious Requirements there so it does speak to that.

So when you say your solution isn't soul scripture. It's your own tradition You totally missed the not not only missed the counter argument, but you totally missed the point

My point is your tradition is defined by your current Bishop of Rome period you don't get to disagree with him

I can point back to 1592 say see that there's your catechism

That's after what you call an ecumenical council that represents their teachings and your current

Pope has just turned that around It says X the current Pope says not X Okay, that's a contradiction in your supposedly infallible teaching

But you've got nothing you can do about it You can't go well, um

Francis you seem to have missed you know minimally of You know 500 years of our tradition and it's longer than that actually

You can't say that you can't correct him You've made him the infallible

Vicar of Christ and so you can't complain when he exercises that authority

Even when he does it and see the thing that's killing you and you don't know it the things that the thing is killing you is

You had it sort of set up to well, he can't come out and say we used to believe this But now we believe that he's doing it the way the left is doing it

He's he's a good liberation theologian this is how they worked all the time and so he's he's doing it in such a way that You know, well, we're just We're just making the more the church more inclusive and open and loving and as I've said on Twitter this morning just look at the

Look at the European nations Look at the state churches I had some poor benighted

Roman Catholic fellow saying because I mentioned I had said look at the mainline denominations

Look at the European churches. This is how they did it and where has it led now they have their rainbow stolled priestesses and You're headed the same direction and you know it

Just listen to the questions being asked in the Synod And the answers being proposed in fact, listen to the way the questions are being asked

That's so often a dead giveaway. I Mean in the political process.

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I didn't even know what's going on. I just don't really care but I saw some clips afterwards and When you listen to these people,

I think NBC was doing it yes, and I saw the

Hindu guy Going after I guess one of the one of the moderators is one of the main people that had pushed the

Russia Collusion hoax he went after her on that. That was great. Wonderful. The point is everybody knows

Those people quote -unquote Moderating that ask the questions. It's the spin of the question that determines what it's gonna look like to the audience

Read the questions that the Synod is putting out. It's the same thing

It's the same playbook and you all know it That's it You're smart people

You all see this, you know it and you're sitting there beating your head against the wall because there ain't nothing you can do about it

There's nothing you can do about it. And my point was You gave up the mechanism of reforming the system when you anathematized sola scriptura

You lost the unchanging Objective revelation from God you lost the voice of Christ and replaced it with the voice of the church and now there ain't nothing you can do about it and You sat back the whole time going off That's I could never change could never change and now it's changing and you don't know what to do about it

And it's frustrating. I know I wouldn't want to be a Catholic apologist these days, but Anyway, so I wanted to respond those things faster than I did

But once I get going things things happen so You ready over there?

Mr. Pierce? All right. Let's Let's get the addicts their fix and let's get the radio free

Geneva Constantly hear people that are

Calvinist harp on this They just keep repeating it and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth

Stands outside the tomb of Lazarus Jesus Lazarus come out and Lazarus said I can't

I'm dead That's not what he did Lazarus came out to me to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ You Take lessons from Judas white and Jeff Durbin it shows in this kind of sequential format

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

Some new Calvinists even pastors very openly smoke pipes and cigars

Just as they drink beer and wine Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief

He wouldn't make any sense to him a self -righteous legalistic deceived jerk

And 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 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 Saint from all those moderate

Calvinist Dave Hunt fans and those who have read and reread George Bryson's book. We are

Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for his own eternal glory And that Tassie quote is still the hardest thing to listen to Yeah, we probably

I think I think Tim said he was working on a version while back Everybody wants

Ergon back. Everybody wants standing on your feet standing your hands stand on your feet stand on a stump

Whatever. Everybody wants that that back in there. So, you know, there are a couple quotes that I don't even know who they are

So we could replace them and put Ergon back in there So I think I should know all the quotes in the in radio free

Geneva theme. I think that probably should be a necessary element of things

Even though I always just put my head down and cover my face with the Steve Tassie Because I remember feeling guilty because it was not my turn to speak but when he said that I was like I Had had enough it was that was a long night that was uh, that was that was 2016

I cannot believe the stuff I did in 2016. I Traveled the world. That was my best year on bike running everything.

It was like that was it. It's all been Anyway radio free

Geneva, we're back Jason Bretta Um, we last week yeah last week did radio free

Geneva and We started off and we're looking at John chapter 6 and I have explained a number of the

Basic errors being made in the presentation for those of you didn't see it. Jason is

A self -described former Calvinist a Calvinist for 10 years and Then he studied the issue and he has come to see that Calvinism Really denigrates character of God and things like this now, obviously those of us who are

Calvinist and have heard all of these things before many many times before and have interacted with every flavor of former

Calvinist rhetoric books Debates interviews the whole nine yards we

Have seen over and over again when people say they were a

Calvinist and now they're not a Calvinist and you ask why and they start

Having to represent Calvinism. You just go you believe that as a

Calvinist and That was what initially attracted someone

I don't remember who it was. Sorry I may have said initially When I respond

I remember where I was on the road, but I May have said who sent it to me initially.

I don't remember But that was what initially caused me to want to respond as I started listening to this and I'm like But a

Calvinist doesn't speak that way a Calvinist doesn't to be and and this is a situation where it's someone who's Freshly out of Calvinism.

I could understand if I was Calvinist 35 years ago and You know, hey the memory

Memory starts going I do understand that but that's not the case here. That's not the situation.

We're looking at So I had responded to some things he had said and specifically I had seen as I had traced through his

Presentation some stuff on John 6 so I focused in on that and I Put up the graphic that he had put on his screen and there were like eight points on it

I just just walked through them and said no this is not that's not true because this and that's not true because of that and and then

I invited him to Respond which it took a few weeks to do because I think

He does put a lot of time into his videos There's a lot of Graphics and editing and and I know how long that takes

But he did and in the process

Said that the original language of the passage Proves 100 % that Calvinism is wrong in various things that it says and You know, the one thing you'd have to give the

Calvinists is Historically, they're real big on the original languages

You know, for example, we played last time some of the things he said about there being no argument for Limited atonement particular redemption and I wrote to him and asked so When did you read?

John Owens the death of death and the death of Christ when you were a Calvinist. Um Well, I have a copy.

I haven't read all of it. Okay It's this kind of thing that makes us go why

Why why do this kind of stuff? Because there are all sorts of arguments for particular redemption and I've made them for decades

And there's entire books from heaven. He came and sought her Which by the way,

I just shouldn't mention in passing I Played that portion last time where he said

Calvin didn't even believe there's an entire chapter in that book on Calvin's testimony to that and I mentioned

Roger Nicole's Article because it's previous more my generation But you can make the argument from my perspective.

It doesn't matter It wasn't the argument of his day at all that wasn't but the focus was on issues like free will and Election predestination and the next generation start putting all that together and and Going from there, but you can make there are a number of quotes you can quote

Where you can make a case that Calvin was consistent at that point. It just wasn't a major Topic of controversy at the time anyway, but there's entire books out there that he didn't even seem to be familiar with and So that's one of the things we deal with on Radio Free Geneva is

You know if you're gonna be a Calvinist for all those years, maybe it might be best to have been a well -read one

Because that would be very helpful but then the big thing was original language and like I said

Long history of a in fact if anything to be honest with you one of the common objections

Against reformed theology today by like independent fundamentalist Baptist people like that is it's too scholarly they they keep talking about Greek and Hebrew and so here you get someone saying yes, but if you look at the

Greek in the Hebrew, it doesn't say what Calvinists say and those of us that have looked at the

Greek in the Hebrew and taught Greek in Hebrew and Spent many years listen to you and go you don't read

Greek or Hebrew do and After he listened to the last dividing line to the last radio free

Geneva. He said on Twitter. Yeah, I do not read Greek and I would assume that would also mean he doesn't read

Hebrew either and so If you don't read

Greek It's best not to put out One hour and 26 minute long videos talking about What the

Greek says? because Someone might take the time to come along go Yeah, no, so we've already talked about The fact that he confuses he can he'll go president dick of active as if that's a tense it's tense mode and voice and then a look at participles and I think one of the things that may have misled him is the blue -letter

Bible thing It's major category for participles is verb but obviously anybody who knows anything about Greek participles knows that it can function as a substantive especially when has the article and So the participle is this wonderfully flexible

I've described it. I've described it this way the The Participle puts the colors

Into the palette of the artist painting with Greek Now some of you hate participles now hate me

I By the way, I'll tell you know what my weak spot is in Greek infinitives

I don't know why everybody's got their strong spots. Everybody's got their weak spots But Infinitives have always driven me batty but participles

I I just Love them, especially the syntax of participles stuff like that so There you go.

I I've given the background what we started doing is demonstrating that there's some real fundamental

Misunderstandings and so this next section is where a lot of them are expressed and then built upon so what what you can learn from this is the danger of using online resources or Logos or accordance or whatever without actually being instructed in the fundamentals of the language and You can end up building an entire case that's

Made out of sand. It's said that The slightest breeze comes along and it all blows away

That's what's happening here, so we will pick up where I said we would pick up last time

It's we tested it beforehand. So put what back we'll find out here in a second now

What I want you to see is what is being explained and clearly explicitly in the text and what is not in the text

There is no mention of the word chosen elect Beforehand sovereign grace or any of those things nor is there need to be completely irrelevant fallacious argumentation

Look at the verse on the screen all that the father gives me will come to me and The one who comes to me all by no means cast out

The word security does not occur here. And yet that's one of the clearest assertions the security believer that there is

The word sovereignty doesn't appear but the father gives men to the son The all -sufficiency of Christ the

Savior is not there, but they are given to him and he will by no means cast out so putting up a list of words that don't appear is fallacious argumentation

Last time I pointed out my Muslim friends Will not believe in the deity of Christ unless a particular formula appears

In the text of Scripture and you have to press back and say you don't have to have a specific

Formula if the argument and the statement is there so this is a fallacious argumentation and should be rejected as Fallacious argumentation and it's not just here in John chapter 6.

It's not anywhere in the gospel of John now there is an expression that the

Calvinist would lean on which is before the foundation of the world and John and Jesus used this in John chapter 17

Well, so what we're exegeting John chapter 6 John chapter 17 has a lot about God's sovereignty and salvation the eternal relationship of the

Father and the Son Jesus as high priest, you know all this other stuff, but what does that have to do with John 6?

It doesn't. 17 verse 24 Jesus says Father I desire that they also whom you gave me may be with me where I am

That they may behold my glory which you have given me for you loved me the

Son Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world Now be careful when you when you put it that way

Who was loved before the foundation world not the incarnate Messiah who hadn't come into existence yet you you have the

Relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity but the reason

I say you have to be careful here is oneness people will come along and They try to reduce these texts to the idea of the incarnate

Son the idea of the coming incarnation Where it can somehow function so that that that way the

Son because remember for the oneness folks The Son as a divine person doesn't exist There's only one divine person they're

Unitarians and So the Son is an idea That will come to fruition in the future

But he did not exist in eternity past. So you've got to be very careful With the language that you that you use here.

So the element before the foundation of the world Would have been clear for John to draw from okay, this is want to make this point it so again

It's fallacious argumentation say well John could have said this or John could have said and I hear people doing this all the time

I try to avoid as much as possible because it is fallacious argumentation. You're literally saying if If the author were to be making the point that I'm disagreeing with he would have had to use my language to do so And again, that's just not the case stick with what as you yourself say

Jason stick with what the text says This is one of those places where you can't stick with what the text says and so you're bringing other stuff in you you violate your

Own hermeneutical principles that it would have been very easy for John to use in John chapter 6

Saying something like this He could have said all that the father has given me before the foundation of the world will come to the

Sun Okay, now notice it says Calvinist perspective. Okay. I don't know Calvinist in the world. It's ever put it this way

The question is When does the father? Give men to the

Sun the text actually grammatically answers that question Because when it says all that the father gives me will come to me the giving of the father is before the coming to the

Sun So you you can't the the way around that For Jason is to turn

John 6 on its head same thing Norman Geisler did jump down to verse 45 Ignore that verse 45 is describing the nature of the drawing and it's the father that's doing all of these things

Ignore that part in certain idea of free will say Oh these are all the people who already are worshiping

God the father out of their own free will and they're the ones given to the son and So as a result of being given they will come again, we put out last time upon what basis do you actually teach?

That someone who has the moral goodness humility spiritual insight to rightfully worship

God the father without any kind of divine grace producing that worship

Why could they not then come to son? What is it about the

Sun that makes him harder to come to than to the father so that would have to mean for example, because the context here is is the

Jews that had come across the lake and they had seen the miracle of the feeding of 5 ,000 and Jesus them you don't believe you don't believe and Here are individuals who

Have given every every indication of being followers of God the father But why can't they come to the

Sun? Well, it's not been given to you by the father But this whole idea is but the father will give everyone to the son who first chooses

Themselves to be followers of the father or something like that. I don't know but so Nobody has said it has to say this

If someone were to ask me when did the giving of the father to the son take place

I would say John 6 doesn't answer that Ephesians 1 does and we can go to Ephesians 1 and answer the question that specifically says

That we were predestined before time began but no one has said that John 6 is addressing that so Notice was it not actually what the text says or is saying and it doesn't have to be more utterly fallacious

Argumentation he could have said that in the text, but that's not what he says He doesn't say that all that the father gives me will come to me and I will not cast out

Okay, so that's what we see here in the text that type of language is not used anywhere else before the foundation world

Anywhere else in the gospel of John, so we need to be care. Okay, just I just want to just point out

Many times what people do is when you have a really weak case What you do is prove all sorts of things that no one's disputing.

Okay None of us have made the argument. Well in John chapter 6 it has to have this language

No one's made that argument. So what you do is you just you just you look like you're disproving all this stuff

When no one's actually making that argument at all um, that's the thing that bothers me here is that that that happens a lot and It shouldn't be full on what words we end up Putting on to the text that are not clearly there and you'll hear when you hear this

You'll hear a lot of Calvinistic pastors use God's sovereign choice of election for these people they you know, he's drawn them to them effectually cause them to believe and to have faith and It's by his sovereign grace and all these things that are not in the text

But here in John 6 37 all that the father gives me Will come to me that word all is a collective word for all the elect

What this is saying is okay, so collected word. I think he said collective

But collected word, where does the text say? This is the elect? Um Because they're given by the father to the son,

I mean we we are allowed to connect John 6 with John 8

John 10 John 17 and then the rest of New Testament, right? So that's that's what he's that's what he's doing

He's saying all the father gives me will come to me and since the elect come to Christ and that is a true statement

No one's saying the term is used right there doesn't have to be again more fallacious argumentation and say it's like Well, we really can't know what the text saying no we can

He is explaining the unbelief of the Jews and he says all the father gives me

Will come to me and then when he explains that later on He's a Satan. No one come to me

Draws him he explains what the drawing is 645 and then repeats it in 660 65 unless it has been given to him by the father and so we understand this to be of the

Elect those that Paul for example. He says I endure all things the sake of the elect

Terms of election predestination the golden chain of redemption all those types of things

Unless you're saying well when you're preaching in John, you can't make reference those things Okay, if you want to say that before any sinner ever came to Christ before any sinner is drawn

Notice it says Calvinist pastors are adding to Scripture No, they're not

They are drawing from all of Scripture He's not he's not saying these words were found there and we're not translating correctly.

No, he's giving you a much broader Theological application of the text.

That's that's all by the father to Christ God had already

Give the seal beside this This is a good example of a pastor telling people what the text saying without explaining what it's saying or how they drew the conclusion

But Jason you do the exact same thing you don't seem to recognize it But you do it fallaciously with bad argumentation and bad

Greek so you're doing the same thing So, how do you how'd you respond to that and those

To the Sun and the reason God had given them to the Sun is because God had already chosen them by himself and for himself

Uh Well God chose the elect by himself question mark question mark question mark.

Well Who did who would he have to ask about the angels? What what what do you mean if they're

God's elect How could it be? otherwise And what about all the verse explain the father and the son are working together?

They share the one being that is God maybe John 14 they the father and the son make their abode

With believers by the presence of the Holy Spirit Trinitarian act I Don't get the confusion here that choice was made before the foundation of the world.

They're not they're not in the text so you're not actually you're bringing on a

Systematic and a belief system on to the text and it's not clearly mentioned in the text and pastors teachers preachers

Please stop doing stuff like this Jason please please stop doing stuff like this because you're doing the exact same thing, but you don't even seem to recognize it you are bringing your synergism in you're bringing your free will is a man and You don't seem to realize it all all

Steve Lawson was doing was bringing together numerous threads But at least he was doing so about the same subject unlike what you did the beginning of this video where you spent the first half hour on stuff that Really wasn't directly relevant to the exegesis of John 6.

So we got a deal with what the text actually says So my my admonition to you is to be faithful to what the text is clearly

Speaking to don't insert your preference of theology on to the text when it doesn't explicitly say that And here

I'm going to draw it even further why it doesn't explicitly say that So first of all nowhere else in Scripture.

Is there any other reference? To the statement of all that the father gives me.

It's only here in John. Okay, so okay Now we're gonna find out what the relevance that is that is right?

We can't use this expression anywhere else in Scripture, so we have to understand truly understand the context of John Right, so I don't get that.

Okay, so it's not used anyplace else. There's lots of hypoxia gominoid and when you when you expand it to a phrase there's many many many of them so you can't connect that to You can't look at what

John says about a Particular people being given by the

Father the Son and Connect that to Ephesians or Romans 8 and 9 or these all have to be separated from one another it

So there is no systematic theology that is derived from biblical theology. I'm not even sure what the objection is there anyway

Now we look at John 637 all that the father gives me will come to me and the one who comes to me

I will by no means cast out all that the father gives me.

This is a present active Indicative tense. Okay present active means that the action is taken by the person

So the coming to Jesus is done by the person because they have are they already have the father

Okay. Now here's where you you start talking about Greek verb tenses and then make then leap to theological conclusions

When you you don't know what you're talking about. Okay So once again, let me

So all the father gives me

Will come so that's that's a future future finite verb future active indicative

Will come to me and it is After all the father gives me

Now last time we pointed out That Jason has this Jason doesn't understand that the present tense has a

Lot of uses in the New Testament A historical narratival no make there's there's all kinds of different present tenses and unless there is something in the context that specifically demands an

Emphasis upon continuous action and I've argued that I think in John there is the fact that John purposefully over the course the entire book

Contrasts the aorist use of belief Always resulting in actual unbelief

With the present whether it's participle or verbal form. I think is significant but outside of that It's the

I have my blue letter Bible open and it says this exegesis is is not good and then so you have the broad statement all

That the father gives me Will come to me. So if if Jason was doing exegesis here the first question across his mind would be why is does he go from a present active did to me

To the future and That would be the first thing that would be asked and The answer would be the one action determines the reality and the instantiation of the second action the giving of the father

Determines the coming to the Sun All the father gives me will come to me.

So the father's giving is prior to Now I would argue the father's giving is free if you want to try to argue that there is some compulsion here that these individuals have fulfilled some kind of Condition then you need to provide that from the text and That'll never be done because it's not there

But the idea is well Actually, yeah, it's there

Because there were these people and they really did follow after God the father and they did it freely and they did it by their own

Free will and there was no decree involved and since they chose to follow the father

Then the father chooses Based upon their freely

Loving him and following him to give them to the Sun so the actual

Controlling factor in identifying who it is who will be given to Jesus again becomes the actions of man

It's what it's if if man chooses to follow the father

Then the father will give those people to the Sun that's

Seems to be the argument, but if you just stick with the text all that the father gives me will come to me and then

The next part that he brings up is Another Right here is another participle

The one coming to me. I will certainly not cast out and so the the two clauses emphasize

God's sovereignty Because he can give To the

Sun and That sovereign action Results in all of those so given so by the way, let me point out

If someone freely chooses, they're just free will they're autonomous if they autonomously choose

To follow the father and the father and gives them the Sun can they not freely choose not to follow the

Sun? See they freely chose To follow

God the father Why could they not then freely choose not to follow the Sun? But the problem is the passage says all that the father gives me will come to me

So it's the giving the father that determines who comes to the Sun there's no question about that and Fact once you read

John 644, there's no way around this The giving of the father is what results in The coming of anyone to Christ and The one coming to me as a result of having been given by the father

I will never cast out and Then the explanation is given

Why will I never cast them out because I've come down of heaven not do my own will the will of him was sent me this will of him sent me that of all that he has given me and He's gonna mention something about this later on But the all there is in the neuter and he doesn't seem to be aware of the fact

That the neuter is used to wrap up groups into singular holes and So that's why it's in the neuter.

It's not that it's a becomes an impersonal group But the the people given in verse 39

That of all that he has given me I Lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

So this is the power of the Savior This is the power of Jesus Here's he will fulfill the will of the father that of all that he's given me

I Will lose none of it, but I will raise it up on the last day

So that group is going to be raised up on the last day because the father has given that group to the son

There's nothing here about they're fulfilling anything being choice meats Being more humble nothing like that.

This is the power of the father and the son to bring about the salvation of a particular people and very clearly 37 and 39

Directly connected together that of all that he has given me So to raise him up in the last day then becomes paralleled to I will certainly not cast out

So who receives eternal life who will never be cast out? Those are given by the father of the son

There it is laid out very

Distinctly for us Um, how far long am I here I wanted to go longer today, but my wife got a seat on a standby flight and When you've been married for 41 years you do not leave your wife at the airport for extensive periods of time

So, let me just look at this graphic again real quickly He has comes present active tense doesn't seem to recognize its participle or common on Present active the person that is the subject in this example anyone the person so I guess the idea is he seems to think that the present tense emphasizes some

Individual capacity or something as if there's no Deadness of man and sin and it's not even addressing any of that stuff

Um Yeah, it's it's the person who comes no one's arguing that no one's saying that Non -persons come to Jesus or non -persons are given by the father the son that wouldn't make any sense.

But why emphasize these things? because he's trying to find stuff in the blue letter

Bible that The text doesn't actually say if you've seen the father You've seen me if you know the father, you know me if you believed in the father believe also in me

If you're a true worshipper of God You will believe me and you see this woven throughout and if you would know the father

You would have known the father you would know me also you would know that I have come from the father That's it. Okay.

So here's the whole idea again as long as you have known the father as long as you've

Freely chosen to be a worshipper of the one true God Um, what he just said is then you will know me then why do you need to be drawn?

Again you have this strange It should just be natural there shouldn't be what why is

Jesus Driving all these people away in John chapter 6 by repeatedly repeatedly saying to them and He was saying to them repeatedly

No one can come to me unless it's been granted them from the father and See, they're offended at Jesus that Jesus centrality in his teaching eat my flesh drink my blood.

They're offended I'm the source of eternal life. I'm the source of spiritual life. I'm the bread that's came down out of heaven they're offended by this and so But if they were worshippers of God the

Father, why could they not freely follow Jesus because Jesus said they can't No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I'll raise him up in the last day

Well, the problem is raising up at the last day is verse 39. That's those given by the father to the son It's divine election again

It's not this Well, as long as you know God the Father then you're just automatically gonna do this

It is true. If you don't have the father, you're not gonna have the son vice versa.

They're a package deal That's extremely important but that's because of the nature of the revelation in the incarnation and The work of the

Spirit who draws God's people unto himself. I Really wanted to get farther than that. I apologize.

But like I said I Got halfway through that section.

So and I already have a clip queued up with Frank Turrick So we will we will press forward just sort of getting a backlog of stuff here because we've now we have the rest of Muhammad Ijab and we've got

Jared Longshore. No connection between the two I assure you So we're getting a little backlog of stuff

That's why we're gonna do another program tomorrow and try to catch up on at least some of it But probably gonna have to put some it off till next week as well

But like I said when your wife manages to get a seat on the early flight she was shooting for you

You get done As close to on time as you possibly can. So Thanks for watching

Dividing Line today. We will see you again tomorrow Not exactly sure when but we'll let you know on the app.

Gotta download the app We'll see you next time. God bless Safe from all those moderate

Calvinist Dave Hunt fans and those who have read and reread George Bryson's book. We are