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

Well, greetings and welcome to the Divine Line. We're going to 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 Bouchon fans, and Tim's mom, his second cousin, they like it too.

Anyway, we will be doing Radio Free Geneva. We'll 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 Divine Line, I think.

Anyway, obviously everyone is talking about what happened on Tuesday, and let me just say that just today 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. If they are a product of the past, of the public indoctrination system, that part of their makeup has been not just twisted but done away with.

The idea of thinking within proper categories, making proper category connections, avoiding improper category connections, it's just not even there. I asked her, one of the first basic questions you have to ask is the child in the womb, human, canine, bovine, feline, human?

And she knew, you could tell, she knew exactly where I was going, so she was just like, I'm not even going to 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 don't care. You can then point out the utter irrationality, but 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 of course the language of the amendment is just utterly laughable.

I mean, it's completely Orwellian. And again, the next generations don't care. Oh, it's Orwellian. I really haven't read that, don't really know anything 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 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 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 are the only people that voted against it 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 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 talking supernatural third great awakening type change. Sorry, it's done. It's over with. As long as these people are voting and they have no moral or ethical character whatsoever, there you go.

That's how the gulags get formed. 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 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 going to 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 was going to 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 it worthwhile to suffer for truth that no one anymore even cares whether it's truth or not?

Well, you might want to read a few sections out of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, a 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.

The Vatican’s Shift on Transgender Baptism and Church Roles

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 going to 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. The word is 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 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 think about, then he gets to choose who's going to be involved with that. It's like he's been watching how elections are done in Maricopa County.

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. And it's a way to make sure, and this is how the left always works, whether it's in religion or politics.

Look at California. What has California done? What's Colorado doing? What are all these? Monoparty. We will make sure that things are going to continue going the way we want them to go. And that's what Francis is doing.

And 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 I tweeted the BBC article on this. I said, nothing you can do about it. You've bought the system, and the system has parameters. And once you say we have an infallible interpreter who embodies tradition, and I've seen Roman Catholics saying, well, Holy Spirit will never allow Francis to promulgate area.

He already has. Already has. Like we pointed out before, even one of the bishops pointed to the change on capital punishment in the universal Catholic catechism 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 it. 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 it's how our system works.

And so what are you supposed to do about it? Well, Trent Horn saw my tweet, evidently, and he responded. And he said, how would scripture answer these questions? One, can a mentally ill person be baptized?

Two, can a mentally ill person be a godparent? Scripture is silent on godparents as well as specific requirements for baptism. Your solution isn't sola scriptura. It's your own tradition. Wow, Trent, that was a face plant.

Sorry, bro. No. The only way that that can have any relevance to what I had posted is if you're making transgenderism a mental illness. Now, I would agree that it has characteristics of mental illness.

No question about it. But if someone were to ask the question, can a mentally ill person be baptized, um, 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 like that. It 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, um, and their desire to follow Christ as best they can.

So I'm, 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 going to slice everybody's heads off, um, on Tuesdays.

But on Wednesdays they are passing out jacked trick tracks, you know, not talking about that. Um, 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. Uh, it's a social contagion. It's not a mental illness.

It's, uh, an illness of the soul. It's sin. It's rebellion. And the requirement for baptism is, uh, well, you know, when we baptize the younger kids, um, 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, uh, Jeff will say, um, is Jesus your boss? Does he get to tell you what to do? That's lordship of Christ. Uh, do you, you submit to his ability to define what your life is to be?

Um, and so that's, that's the issue. Can they understand that? What's their answer to that? Uh, it's about submitting to the lordship of Jesus Christ. And again, God, parents, stuff like that. Um, not a part of my, my tradition at all.

So, um, don't have any interest in it one way or the other, but to say scripture is silent on God, parents will dove. It's a human tradition as well as specific requirements for baptism. What's not, we have, we have very clear requirements for baptism.

Um, the object of faith, uh, the issue of repentance, uh, understanding of sin it's, it's all, it's all over. Uh, it's, it's an ax. It's, it's the, uh, 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, uh, 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 miss the not, not only miss 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 and 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, uh, missed, you know, minimally, uh, 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, uh, 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 fellows saying, cause 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 stalled 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 was going on.

I just don't really care. Um, but I saw some clips afterwards. And when you listen to these people, I think NBC was doing it. Yes. Um, and I saw the, um, Hindu guy, uh, 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 going to 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 solo 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, oh, it 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 to those things faster than I did. But once I get going, things happen. So you ready over there, Mr. Pierce?

All right, let's get the addicts their fix.

And let's get to Radio Free Geneva. We 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. At the tomb of Lazarus, she says, 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. And 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?

No. Calvinists, even pastors very openly smoke pipes and cigars, just as they drink beer and wine. This cannot override your unbelief.

A verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it? He 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, 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 save for his own eternal glory.

And that Tassie quote is still the hardest thing to listen to.

Yeah, we probably... I think Tim said he was working on an version a while back. Everybody wants Ergen back. Everybody wants standing on your feet, standing on your hands, standing on your feet, standing on a stump, whatever.

Everybody wants that back in there. There are a couple of quotes that I don't even know who they are, so we could replace them and put Ergen back in there. I think I should know all the quotes in the 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 thing. 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. That was a long night. 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 it. It's all been downhill since then. Anyway, Radio Free Geneva, we're back. Jason Breda. 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 that 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 the character of God and things like this. Now, obviously, those of us who are Calvinist and have 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 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 responded, 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. Calvinist doesn't speak that way. And this is a situation where it's someone who's freshly out of Calvinism.

I could understand if, oh, it's Calvinist 35 years ago. And, you know, hey, the 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 walked through them and said, no, that's not true because of this, that's not true because of that.

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 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.

The one thing you'd have to give the Calvinists is, historically, they're real big on the original languages. 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 Owen's The Death of Death and the Death of Christ when you were a Calvinist?

Well, I have a copy. I haven't read all of it. It's this kind of thing that makes us go, why? Why do this kind of stuff? Because there are all sorts of arguments for particular redemption, and I've made them for decades.

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 it. 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. The focus was on issues like free will and election procrastination, and the next generation start putting all that together and going from there.

But there are a number of quotes that 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, if you're going to 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 independent fundamentalist Baptists, people like that, is it's too scholarly.

They keep talking about Greek and Hebrew. And so here you get someone saying, yes, but if you look at the Greek and the Hebrew, it doesn't say what Calvinists say. And those of us that have looked at the Greek and the Hebrew and taught Greek and Hebrew and spent many years, listen to you and go, you don't read Greek or Hebrew, do you?

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 and go, yeah, no.

So we've already talked about the fact that he confuses. He'll go present indicative active, as if that's a tense, it's tense mode in 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 it has the article. And so the participle is this wonderfully flexible, I've described it, I've described it this way.

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, I'll tell you 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. Um, infinitives have always driven me batty, but participles, I, I just love them. Uh, especially the syntax of participants, stuff like that.

So there you go. I, I, I've given you 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, 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. Um, 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, uh, fallacious argumentation. Um, 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.

Uh, the word security does not occur here. And yet that's one of the clearest assertions of the security believer that there is. Uh, the word sovereignty doesn't appear, but the father gives men to the son.

Um, the, uh, all sufficiency of Christ's savior is not there, but they are given to him. Um, and he will by no means cast out. So putting up a list of words that don't appear is fallacious argumentation.

Um, I, last time I pointed out, my Muslim friends will not believe in the deity of Christ unless a particular formula appears, uh, 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 six, it's not anywhere in the gospel of John. Now there is an expression that the Calvinists 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 six. John chapter 17 has a lot about God's sovereignty and salvation. Um, 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.

Six? 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. Um, who was loved before the foundation of the 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, cause remember for the oneness folks, the son as a divine person doesn't exist. Um, 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, uh,.

So the element, uh, before the foundation of the world would have been clear for John to draw from. Okay. This is, I just want to make this point.

So again, it's fallacious argumentation to 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. Um, 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 six, 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 that'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, the, the way around that for Jason is to turn John six 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 that'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 sun. 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 the sun?

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 the 5 ,000.

And Jesus says to 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 six doesn't answer that Ephesians one does. And we can go to Ephesians one and answer the question that specifically says that we were predestined before time began, but no one has said that John six is addressing that.

So notice when is 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 careful. 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 six, 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, um,.

It shouldn't be full on what words we end up putting onto the texts 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, affectionately 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 six 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. Um, I mean, we, we are allowed to, uh, connect John six with, um, John eight, John 10, uh, John 17, and then the rest of the 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, then that is a true statement. No one's saying the term is used right there. It doesn't have to be again, more fallacious argumentation.

It's like, uh, well, we, we really can't know what the text saying. No, we, 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 as far as him draws him. He explains what the drawing is six 45, and then he repeats it in six 60, 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, um, terms of election, predestination, the golden chain of redemption, all those types of things.

Unless you're saying, well, when you're preaching and John, you can't make reference to those things. If you want to say that before any center ever came to Christ before any center is drawn. Notice it says Calvinist pastors are adding to scripture.

Um, no, they're not. They are drawing from all of scripture. Um, 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 of his side. He says, 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. Um, uh, so how do you, how'd you respond to that?

And those to the son and the reason God had given them to the son is because God had already chosen them by himself and for himself. Uh, well, God shows the elect by himself, question mark, question mark, question mark.