Transcription
Hey Rowan, I'm Ferris, and Rhenish Brown Horses are back at it again. They've got another suggestion for a Christian versus Protestant. They said, "How about Todd Friel?" and they included a link there to one of his videos.
Which we actually watched the day before, and we thought we should do a Christian versus Protestant on this. But we're not gonna do that yet, because we realized in looking at that video, we actually have to go back a few steps. Because what Todd teaches in that video is a false teaching, but he has several false teachings that lead up to that false teaching.
So instead of doing a really long video that lets us get to the point where Todd's at here, where he's making this false teaching, we're gonna backtrack. We're gonna go to where Todd's making his first mistake, which leads into his newest mistake, which Reddish-Brown Horse is talking about here. That way, once we get to doing a Christian vs. Protestant on this video, we don't have to go over all the stuff from the past that led into him making this new false teaching. We could just say, "If you want to learn about his past mistakes, check out this video."
Now, if you don't want to miss any of that, subscribe to the channel. Click that notification bell. There's gonna be a pop-up. It says "All." Click the "All" button. There's so much stuff that you can click with your mouse. It's gonna be a lot of fun. You can click the thumbs up button if you're like, "Oh, that was not enough to click, and I want to click something else." Hit thumbs up.
And then, if you're like, "I'm done with clicking, I want something more advanced," go to the comment section. Start typing. Use all those fingers. Let me know what you think about the show. 24. Tell me how you found this channel. Actually, that's a better thing than this. This just happened to be lying around because it's a problem today's video. But if you could let me know in the comments, how did you find this channel? Because we actually are getting more subscribers recently, and I'm not sure why. I mean, totally cool with it. Just curious how you're getting here.
Now, with that out of the way, I'm a Bible-believing Christian, and our Protestant for the day is Mr. Todd Friel of Wretched Radio. Did I get that right? This is Wretched Radio. This is Christian versus Protestant on "Once Saved Always Saved." Rambling to start off. We'll set the stage here.
Christians believe that if a person is truly saved once, I mean, they're actually saved. They don't just think they're saved, they're actually saved. Christians believe that if a person is truly saved once, then that person may or may not be saved later on. Another way you may hear Christians refer to this is that they say that a Christian can lose their salvation.
Now, on the other hand, Protestants, like Todd Friel, believe that if a person is truly saved once, then that person will always be saved later on. The doctrine of assurance. Now, for any Protestants watching, you might be thinking, "That's not what I believe as a Protestant." And that's fine, because a lot of Protestants actually side with Christianity on this issue.
If you've seen Christian versus Protestant before, then you know that Protestants are allowed to believe Christian things. A lot of what Protestants believe actually is Christian. But the difference between a Christian and a Protestant is that Protestants believe things that go against what Christianity teaches. Usually not all of what Christianity teaches, usually not even most of what Christianity teaches. But there's always at least some part of Christianity that Protestants do not agree with. So this happens to be a part of Christianity that Todd Friel doesn't believe in. But as a Protestant, you don't have to agree with Todd on this issue. You might disagree with Christianity somewhere else, and that's why you're a Protestant. So just note that when we were saying that Protestants believe this, we're not saying all Protestants believe it. We're just saying Protestants believe it.
That being said, let's have Todd walk us through this. "There are many Bible verses that you'll read and go, 'Did that just say that I can lose my salvation?' Think Hebrews 6, Hebrews chapter 10. It looks like I can lose it. So maybe security is conditional after all. But then there's another view that is held, and it's the, the view that I'm gonna present you today based on our text that we will get to. It is called eternal security. It is sometimes called the perseverance of the saints. Once saved, always saved."
So how do we resolve this tension? All right. So we already have videos that explain that salvation can be lost. In other words, a person can be truly saved once, and then that person may not be saved later on. The fact that a Christian can lose their salvation has been taught since the beginning of Christianity. It was later recorded in parts of the Bible, and it continues to be taught even today. I'm teaching it right now. This is the Christian belief, if you didn't know that. And if you want to learn more about that, check out these videos here. The links to those are in the description below.
If you don't feel like doing that right now, we will be going over a little bit in this video that does show you that salvation can be lost by Christians. But if you want a lot more detail on that, I would highly recommend watching these videos because the main focus of this video is to show you where Todd Friel is going wrong. So hopefully, no one else makes that same mistake.
All right. So Todd talks about two types of verses. He says, "There are a fair number of verses which appear to teach against once saved always saved. If you read the Bible, you have got Bible verses, and there's a fair number that appear to state you can lose your salvation. He then says, 'There are a mountain of verses which teach in favor of once saved always saved.' On this side, you've got a mountain." Spoiler alert: Mr. Friel has that wrong. There is not a mountain of verses in the Bible that teach once saved always saved, because there are literally no verses in the entire Bible that teach once saved always saved.
But don't take my word for it, because I could be lying to you. I am totally capable of lying. So just listen to what we both have to say. That's important because one of us clearly is not telling you the truth. I'm not saying that Todd or I would intentionally lie to you. I'm just saying we both want to be good Christians. We both have our beliefs. We both think we've got it right. But let's face the facts here. One of us definitely has it wrong because we're saying conflicting things. So seriously, I think it's a really good idea if you listen to what both sides are saying.
So Todd has set the stage here. He's got verses on this side which appear to conflict with verses on this side. So let's listen to Mr. Friel's suggestion on how to resolve this issue. "Here's how I see it. If you read the Bible, you have got Bible verses, and there's a fair number that appear to state you can lose your salvation. On this side, you've got a mountain. And so if you put these two views on a scale with their Bible verses, what I think you see is the scale tipping very strongly toward eternal security."
Okay, so first of all, notice that Todd says, "Here's how I see it. Here's how I see it." And he then goes on to tell his audience what he thinks, what he thinks you see. So what Todd is saying here is not factually based. It's all based on Todd's opinion. He's just basing his beliefs on his feelings, which is weird, because later on in the speech, Todd says this: "If your Christian walk is based on your feelings, it's gonna be rough." Mr. Friel's solution to this problem is entirely based on his feelings. And I do feel like it's gonna be rough for him if he decides to base his Christian walk off of that feelings-based solution, because Mr. Friel's feelings-based solution only has a 50% success rate. It also has a 50% failure rate.
Here's why. Let's pretend there's an Olympic-sized swimming pool. You got a bunch of signs over there. You got a bunch of signs over here. All these signs, they say, "Hey, shark-infested waters. Do not go in here." These signs, however, say, "Shark-free. Enjoy your swim." Let's say there's ten of these signs and three of these signs. Are you gonna go swimming? Would you do what Todd Friel is doing and say, "Well, we got a mountain of signs over here that say there are no sharks, and we only got some signs over here that say there are. So I'm going in." I don't know about you, but I know I wouldn't be jumping in that pool until I figured out what both of these signs were really saying. Even if there were like a million signs on this side that said "Shark-free zone, enjoy your swim," if there was just one sign on that side, even just like a tiny little baby sign, just kind of sticking up out of the grass, and it said "Shark-infested, keep out," I would still want to figure out what that teeny little sign was talking about before I jumped into the pool. I wouldn't go with Todd's solution. Me like, "Yeah, we got all these signs that appear to be saying there are no sharks in here, so, you know, forget that, I'm going in."
All right. So with that in mind, we're gonna listen to Todd give a little further explanation on his solution. "So when you see this mountain of verses that is crystal-clear, you take those verses, and then seeing clearly that God, we interpret the unclear in light of the clear. And suddenly the Bible harmonizes, and everything makes perfect sense."
So Mr. Friel's solution is to interpret the unclear in light of the clear. At first glance, that might sound like a reasonable solution. There is one major problem with it, though. How the heck do you decide which one's the clearer and which one's the unclear? It seems like Todd is basing clarity off of quantity. If you put these two views on a scale with their Bible verses, what I think you see is the scale tipping very strongly toward eternal security. Just because there are more signs over here which appear to be saying there are no sharks in this pool, that doesn't make them any more clearer than that sign over here which appears to be saying there are sharks in this pool. Having a higher quantity of something doesn't always mean that you've increased its clearness. I mean, if we're talking pixels, then yeah, maybe. But in terms of this text, having more text over here that says one thing doesn't make it any more clear than text over here that says another.
As Todd pointed out, there appeared to be verses over here that say you can lose your salvation. The only reason he's saying these are unclear is because he's going to these verses which he thinks teach that you can't lose your salvation, and he's saying, "Well, that makes these ones unclear because what they're saying conflicts with these." And that's how Todd is figuring out what's clear and what's unclear. Again, Todd's method has a 50% failure rate because if I go over here and I start with these and say, "All right, well, these ones appear to be teaching that salvation cannot be lost," and then I go over here and I find some that appear teaching that salvation can be lost, and then I say, "Well, these are pretty clear, so that lets make these ones unclear because they're teaching against these ones. So these are the clear, and I'm gonna interpret the unclear and let have it clear." Todd's taking a guess. Todd's not actually proving that these verses clearly say what he thinks they say. Todd is basing his Christian walk on his feelings. And what did we just hear Todd say about that? "If your Christian walk is based on your feelings, it's gonna be rough."
Just make sure everyone gets this. The reason why Todd is saying that these verses that say you can lose your salvation are unclear is not because he thinks they're unclear by themselves. When you read those verses, as Todd said, they do appear to teach that you can lose your salvation. "If you read the Bible, you have got Bible verses, and there's a fair number that appear to state you can lose your salvation." There's nothing unclear about the verses themselves. The reason Todd is calling them unclear is because Todd is reading a bunch of other verses, and he's interpreting them in a way that make them teach against what these ones are teaching. And the problem with that is that Todd is interpreting these verses in ways that make them say way more than what's actually written there.
So that's what we're gonna look at now. In this video, we're gonna take this whole mountain of verses here, which Mr. Friel believes teaches "once saved always saved," and we're gonna prove to you that none of the verses that he's talking about teach "once saved always saved." And for anyone watching who still believes him, "once saved always saved," after this, we're gonna let you put in the comments any verses that do you think teach "once saved always saved." If you think that "once saved always saved" is something the Bible let us know where you think it's time, because I guarantee you it's not. But we will look at, because I want you to see that this mountain here doesn't exist. We just got these ones over here, and they say you can lose your salvation. Because being Christian is not a cakewalk. You actually got to do stuff. You can lose your salvation. So I wouldn't recommend just following your feelings and saying, "Well, these signs appear to say there's no sharks in the pool, so carrying those sharks in the pool." Because if you jump in the pool and there are sharks, well, you're screwed because you didn't listen to the one sign. Likewise, if you go through life assuming that you're "once saved always saved," and then it turns out, "Oh, that's not the case," then you might have to deal with something worse than sharks.
So let's check out this mountain here. Take it away, Todd. "I would now like you to open your Bible to Romans chapter 8. Here is what we are gonna see as we make our way through Rome. Whenever your justification is talked about, it is past tense, completed, passive. It has happened to you."
Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Todd is correct on all that. We're not gonna go through every verse in Romans. We're just gonna assume that what Todd is saying there is correct. "Whenever your justification is talked about in Romans, it is past tense, completed, passive. It has happened to you." Verses that use the word "saved" in the way that Todd is discussing here actually do make up a big portion of this mountain that Todd says exists. But here's the thing: even with this mountain of verses being made up of several verses, like tons and tons of verses that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that justification is discussed as being past tense, completed, passive, something that has happened, that mountain would have absolutely no impact on these verses over here that teach that salvation can be lost.
In other words, Christians can believe in a whole mountain of verses that teach of a justification that is discussed as past tense, completed, passive, and has happened, at the very same time they can still be believing in these verses over here which teach that if a person is truly saved once, then that person may or may not be saved later on. The reason for how that's possible is because these verses over here, these verses that Todd is talking about at the moment, they don't talk about being "once saved and always saved." They talk about being "once saved." Todd is simply pointing out verses that say people have been saved. "Whenever your justification is talked about, anything, look, it's saying they're saved in the past tense. It is past tense. They were already saved." Yeah, they were. He's saying it is completed. Completed. Again, as a Christian who believes in all of these verses that teach that salvation can be lost, I agree with Todd. When these verses, and this mountain of verses that are like those verses, teach that a person is saved, that is a successful saving. It's done. It's completed. That particular instance of being saved, that can't be undone. Todd is talking about verses where being saved is passive. Passive. I'm okay with that. If Todd can find verses that say that God can save you without you having to do anything in order to be saved, that's fine. That doesn't conflict with these verses at all that say that you can lose your salvation. Todd closes that by saying, "It has happened. It has happened to you." Again, yeah, it has happened. You were saved in the past. These people were saved in the past. The point is that most of the verses that Todd is throwing into this mountain of verses here are just verses that teach that you've been once saved. They don't teach "once saved always saved." They teach "once saved."
So let me show you why none of what I just said disproves any of this. Let's go back to the pool. And guess what? There was a shark coming. So you're standing at the edge of the pool, and then you see the shark coming at you. And you're just, you're overwhelmed. Do you find yourself flabbergasted? For the first time, you're like, "I didn't even know I could get flabbergasted." And then you faint because you just can't handle it, and you fall right into the water anyway. You're out of it. You can't do a thing. You're unconscious. The shark is coming towards you. Lifeguard, though, sees it happening. Jumps in. Saved your life. Gets you out of there. They wait by your side, a safe distance from the pool. They make sure you regain consciousness. They saved you. You were saved by that. Like, good. You can say that because that's what happened. It is the past tense. You were saved already. It is completed. It was a successful saving. It's done. It's complete. You cannot undo that particular saving. It is passive. You were out for the count. You couldn't do anything. You just, you fainted. You were done. That shark was gonna get you. With a lifeguard, they saved you. They pulled you out. They got you back. So it is passive, and it has happened to you. You were saved in the past by that lifeguard.
So to ask a very simple question: Does that one saving mean that you are "once saved and always saved" from the shark? Since the lifeguard here did save you, and all the verses say that you were saved, and this was not your room doing, it was not a result of your works, do all of those factual statements mean you cannot be hurt by that shark anymore? Are you forever saved from that shark? Mr. Friel is teaching that all of these verses here say that you can take your saved self and jump back into that pool, and that shark can't kill you. But do those verses say that? No, they say you were saved. It happened in the past. The lifeguard saved you. That's what happened. There's no undoing that saving of you. But if you jump back in, a guarantee that shark's not gonna look at you and be like, "Oh, wait, you've been saved already. Let me just put on some MC Hammer because I can't touch this." No, you're gonna want to get out of that pool as soon as you can. And you might not be able to save yourself. You might need the help of a lifeguard.
So you were once saved by the lifeguard from the shark. That doesn't mean you're always saved from the shark. If you run away from the lifeguard after he saves you, and you slip and you hit your head on the side of the pool, and you just roll right in unconscious again, guess who's gonna need saving again? You've gotten yourself into a position again where you need saving. Now, that doesn't invalidate the first saving at all. You were still saved. That's complete. That's done. That happened. You could still say you were saved. But now you're not. Now you're floating in a pool with blood dripping out of cutting your forehead from where you hit the cement. And guess what? Movies and television have taught us sharks are attracted to blood. But here's the point: Even at that moment in time, when the shark is coming at you, you're still helpless. You're unconscious. You can't do anything. Here, all of these verses here that say that you were saved, even if nobody saves you this time, if the shark gets you and you were not saved from the shark, we can still say all of these things: You were saved from the shark by the lifeguard. You were saved, and it was a successful saving. That didn't change. That's still true. That happened. You were once saved. But judging by what the shark has left behind there in this metaphor, you were not always saved. Because clearly, you could have used saving in this situation. And I am gonna, I'm gonna keep that watch. If you're not gonna have it, buddy. Yeah, sharks don't wear watches because their fins are too big. And that's the only reason why. See, I told you it can't be trusted. You don't know if that's true about sharks.
Now, notice what I'm not doing here. I'm not saying this side is definitely clear, so we have to interpret this side based on this side. I'm saying this side is clear, and this side is clear. So figure out what both sides say and see how they fit together. This mountain of verses that Todd is talking about is mainly made up of verses like this, which talk about how people were saved. The reason why Todd Friel thinks that these verses which teach that salvation can be lost conflict with these verses over here is because Todd is adding to the verses. He's adding "and you will always be saved" to all of these verses. That's not in any of those verses. Todd Friel was just adding to the Word of God, and that's where his problem is. He's created a bunch of new verses that now conflict with these verses over here. And Todd's taking his own creations and saying, "Well, these ones, these are the clear ones." Weird how the ones that he made up are the clear ones. But anyway, because these are the clear ones, see Todd, these ones can't be clear. So he says these are unclear now because these are teaching against what these ones are teaching. But again, we're back to the same point. Todd made these verses up. None of these verses exist. These ones do, and these ones don't conflict with these ones. So once you realize that this whole mountain here turns into a little tiny hill of other verses that Todd thinks helped prove his point, but as we're gonna see as we continue, they don't even come close. But again, we're not saying one side is clear and the other side is unclear. We're saying both sides are clear. This is how they fit together, and it's pretty common-sense stuff. Anytime someone has been saved, you can say, "Yeah, they've been saved. They were saved." But saying that someone has been saved and they were saved in the past, that has never meant that they will always be saved from that same thing that they needed saving from in the first place. So where Todd is getting any of that, who knows? But it doesn't make any sense.
Now, before we get to the rest of this little pile here, I do want to go through one thing. Todd talks about the NLT translation of the Bible. This happens to be the NLT. I happen to have it handy. That's the only Bible I have on my desk. This is not the most helpful translation because they're absolutely giving this a Protestant spin here. I'd rather confront the text the way it actually is. Joey, Davin, do you guys have a different Bible translation handy? Todd says that the NLT translation of the Bible has a Protestant spin to it. So we're gonna go now to that Protestant-spun version of the Bible. "Paul tells the Corinthians, 'Let me now remind you, dear brothers and sisters, of the good news I preached to you before you welcomed it, then and you still stand for a minute. It is this good news that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you, unless, of course, you believe something that was never true in the first place.'"
So even Paul, in this Protestant-spun version of the Bible, says that the good news saves you if you continue to believe the message. Just like this lifeguard's actions continue to save you if you don't do something stupid and jump back in the pool. So maybe security is conditional after all. So being saved, even right here, Mr. Friel's Protestant-spun Bible, is conditional. The good news saves you if you continue to believe. There's nothing really complicated about this. But Protestants, like Todd Friel, teach this "once saved always saved." And yeah, it sounds really great. It's super easy. You don't have to do anything once you've been saved. I'm not gonna lie, I think that could be pretty nice. But that's not the way it is. You're holding on to "once saved always saved" because you're like, "Well, this is, this is how it should be. This is how I want to be." Who cares what you wanted to be? Here's what it is: The good news saves you if you continue to believe it.
Now let's knock out the rest of this nonsense. "No condemnation." That's how he begins Romans chapter 8, verse 1. He wants you to hear that when you have been saved, you're not gonna get condemned again. You're in Christ. Well, hold on a second there, Todd, because even your NLT translation says so. "Now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus." Paul is not saying what Mr. Friel is saying. Paul is not saying, "When you have been saved, you're not going to get condemned again." Paul is saying, "There is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ." And actually, Todd said, "You are in Christ." You're in Christ. So it sounds like Todd is actually not reading from the Protestant-spun NLT translation here.
Now, on his radio show, Mr. Friel switched to the NASB translation of the Bible as an alternative for the NLT. This happens to be the NLT. This is not the most helpful translation because they're absolutely giving this a Protestant spin here. I'd rather confront the text the way it actually is. Joey, do you guys have a different Bible translation handy? So we're gonna look at the NASB translation as well, because that says, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," which matches more with what Todd is saying. Now, you're in Christ. So let's say this lifeguard saves you from the shark. You regain consciousness. And then the lifeguard says to you, "Therefore, there is now no shark-induced death for those who are in the lifeguard's protection." So that means you're safe if you're in the lifeguard's protection. But if you run away from the lifeguard and you jump back in the pool, shark-induced death is back on the table. These verses let us know that if you're in this group of people who belong to the lifeguard, there is no shark-induced death. If you're in this group of people who belong to Jesus, there is no condemnation. But if you turn away from Jesus and you no longer belong to Christ Jesus, then this "no condemnation" message, it doesn't apply to you anymore. Again, we're seeing a verse where there's a condition. The condition for no condemnation is that you are in Christ Jesus, where you belong to Christ Jesus. But if a point comes where you're no longer in Christ Jesus, or you no longer belong to Christ, this no-condemnation here is no longer guaranteed.
Now, some Protestants who do believe in "once saved always saved" will say, "Well, if you're in Christ Jesus, you can't get out of Christ Jesus." Because look at these verses here: "Nobody is gonna snatch you from the hand of Jesus Christ." And to those people, I would just point out that these verses are talking about forcefully being removed from God's hand, and that forceful removal is being done by an outside source. So these verses still leave open the possibility for you to just leave God's hand. You're not being plucked from his hand, you're not being snatched from his hand, you're just leaving his hand. I can tell you, no one's gonna pluck you from the lifeguard and throw you in the pool. But you can still leave the lifeguard on your own and hop in the pool. So again, as we saw with the other verses, there's absolutely nothing about this "no condemnation" verse that teaches "once saved always saved." So this pile just keeps getting smaller and smaller. What else you got in here to add?
"Now go to Romans chapter 8, verse 29. And if you had to pick a clobber verse for eternal security, this would definitely be on the list." Oh, a clobber verse. Sounds like Mr. Friel is putting a lot of weight on this one. So let's hear. "Romans 8:29. You know that your glorification was secured in eternity past, and you haven't experienced it yet. But this is precisely what our text says: that God predestined, he called, he justified, he sanctified, and he glorified in the past, before the planet existed." What was it? Oh.
All right, well, okay. God did do all of that. He did it in the past, as Mr. Friel said. Now, that passage doesn't say that God did it before the planet existed. But what the heck, let's give that to Mr. Friel. We'll tack it on at the end here, and we'll just pretend the verse says that for this video. Before the planet existed. But yeah, God did all of this in the past. And he did all that, as the passage says, for a specific group of people, those whom he foreknew. So those people, whoever they were, got predestined, got called, got justified, and got glorified in the past. Way back there. Can barely see it from here. But yet, it's like right behind, see the Titanic? If you look a little further to the left, and then underneath of whatever happened before the Titanic, because I'm not that good with history. Point is, yeah, all that happened in the past. But guess what? That again does not prove "saved always saved." It just proves that these people were saved. They were justified at least one time. But the passage doesn't rule out the possibility that they were in need of justification several times. The passage says God justified them, but it doesn't say he justified them only once. God could have justified these people multiple times. If you jumped into the pool 489 times after going in the first time, the lifeguard could save you 489 more times. So in this situation, the lifeguard has now saved you 490 times. Even after all that, I can say the lifeguard saved you. I could say the lifeguard saved you after he saved you once. I could say the lifeguard saved you after he saved you 490 times. I'm saying the same sentence, but there's no indication of the number of times that you were saved. Just like the sentence talks about people being justified, it doesn't say how many times they were justified. It just says that God justified them. You could have justified them one time. You could have justified them 490 times. The point is, this passage in Romans doesn't help to prove Todd's side, and it doesn't help to prove the Christian side. It doesn't hurt either side, either, because both sides believe that God justifies you. But Todd's trying to say he only does it once, whereas Christians are saying God can do it as many times as he needs to or wants to.
All right, so Todd's clobber verse is gone. And we've only had a couple more in here. So, "Todd, God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is he who died, yea, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for you." There's another sign. You can't lose your salvation. If you can fall from grace, Jesus's intercessory work has failed.
All right, so Todd says that if you can fall from grace, Jesus's intercessory work has failed. And if Mr. Friel really does believe that, then he should also believe that if you can get eaten by a pool shark, the lifeguard's intercessory work has failed. But here's the thing: None of that is true. As we already pointed out, once you're saved, it's done. It's complete. It happened. That particular saving cannot be undone. It was a success. If Jesus saves you, it was a success. When the lifeguard saved you from the shark, that was a successful saving. Let's say you've wound up in the pool a hundred times now. The lifeguard had saved you 100 times. That is 100 successful saves. And every time, the lifeguard can tell you, "Here's what you got to do to stay safe. Don't go in the pool. Stay out of there, you idiot." But every time you keep going back in. So maybe the lifeguard realizes, "Hey, you don't want to be safe from sharks." So when that next time comes around that you put yourself into danger, the lifeguard's like, "Well, I'm not even going to try to save you anymore because you clearly don't want to be saved." If the shark gets you, that wasn't the lifeguard's failure to save you. The lifeguard decided he wasn't saving you. He was successful at not even trying. It's not like he attempted to save you and the shark got you first. He just didn't try to save you because he knew you would keep going into the pool. Jesus can also save a person hundreds and hundreds of times. And Christians believe, just as Todd, as a Protestant, believes, that if Jesus tries to save you, he will save you 100% of the time. We all believe that. He's got a 100% success rate. The guy's good. But if you turn your back on God for like the five millionth time, and God's like, "I'm not gonna try. I realized that they never want to be with me. So I'm just not gonna try to bring them back." That's not a failure on the part of God or Jesus. It's not like they attempted to save you and they're like, "Ah, I missed." They just didn't try to save you because they knew you weren't gonna want to be saved anyway.
So this nonsense here, we can take that out of the pile because, well, that just doesn't make any sense. We can burn that. So this former mountain is looking pretty sparse now. But he's got one more thing in here. What the heck is this? "Top, who will separate us from the love of Christ?" Isn't that the issue? No, Todd, that's that's not the issue. The issue here is "are we once saved always saved?" The issue is not "are we once loved always loved?" But thank you for playing. It was, it was a good time. I enjoyed myself. Oh, he wants to keep going. "Nothing, nothing, nothing can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus. Nothing separates us from his love. It can't separate us from the love of God. Nothing can separate us from the love of God." In. Okay, Todd, we get it.
So for some reason, Mr. Friel decided to spend so much time in his video talking about these verses which explains how Paul is convinced that none of these things can separate us from the love of God. Obviously, Christians agree with that. It's in their book. But in case anyone wasn't aware of this, loving somebody is not the same as saving somebody. To help illustrate this, let's pretend that the lifeguard here is your best friend. They love you. They care for you. You know what? They're your brother. They're your brother. They love you. They care for you. They want the best for you. They've saved you several times because they love you. If that last time comes around after you continue to jump into the pool, and your brother who loves you doesn't save you, does that mean that they don't love you anymore? Or does that just mean that they didn't save you? It means that they didn't save you. It's still possible to love somebody and let them have what they want, which is to be eaten by a shark, so to speak.
So why Mr. Friel spent so much of the video talking about how these things are things that Paul is convinced cannot separate us from the love of God, that's beyond me because it doesn't even teach "once saved always saved." It doesn't even teach "once saved." It teaches us about God's love, which, don't get me wrong, is a great teaching for Christians to know. As Todd points out in his video, there are a lot of things that you can do, and no matter how terrible those things are, God can still love you. Nothing you can do can force God to stop loving you. So that portion actually is a true Christian teaching that Mr. Friel is talking about there. So great job to Mr. Friel for teaching Christianity, at least on that topic. But that passage tells us about God's love. It doesn't teach "once saved always saved." And I'm sorry, I didn't see this. I forgot to scrape the bottom of the barrel. There was one more in here. "You were sealed in the Holy Spirit." Paul talks about in Ephesians 1. That's true. Ephesians 1 does say that you were sealed in him. Now, I could explain to you right now why what Mr. Friel is talking about here has nothing to do with "once saved always saved." But instead, I have a special guest who's gonna teach you why that has nothing to do with "once saved always saved." So ladies and gentlemen, a special treat for you all. Mr. Todd Friel.
"God sealed you with the Holy Spirit. If you can get unsaved, you've broken the seal." Stellar point for Mr. Friel. If you can get unsaved, then you might have broken the seal. That's certainly a possibility, if it's left open by the text. I mean, the text says you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise. Notice it doesn't say, "And oh yeah, that seal is unbreakable." So yeah, like Mr. Friel jested, if you can get unsaved, then maybe it's possible that that seal can break. I mean, it doesn't have to break. For instance, the DVD that's in here, the DVD was sealed in the case with the machine at the manufacturing plant. But check this out. I've just undone the seal and I've removed the DVD from where it was sealed. Used to be in the case, now it's not. Seal's not broken, it's just undone. Even that, though, isn't necessarily necessary. You don't need to undo the seal. Back to the DVD, because why not talk more about 24? This has been sealed for the day in which someone wants to watch 24. But I'm sure that there's a DVD out there, just like this one, which has been sealed for the day when someone wants to watch 24, and it's still shrink-wrapped. It hasn't been touched. No one's ever gonna watch it because I make so many of these things, and a lot of people don't watch DVDs anymore. So somewhere there's a DVD just like this one, and it's still in its original packaging. All of the seals are there, and it probably will stay sealed, and no one will ever watch that DVD. And again, that's because even if something is sealed for a certain event, for the day of redemption, or sealed for the day when someone wants to watch that episode of 24, a seal does not necessarily mean that something will happen because it was sealed for that reason.
So there we have it. Todd's got nothing on the side he said there was a mountain, and now there's just there's nothing. Oh, we got these over here which teach that "once saved always saved" is a false teaching. It's not Christian. It's anti-Christian. "Once saved always saved" is a Protestant teaching, and it goes against Christianity. So let me know in the comments, do you think the Christians have it right when they say that if a person is truly saved once, then that person may or may not be saved later on? Or do you think that Protestants, like Todd Friel, have it right when they teach against the Word of God and they say that if a person is truly saved once, then that person will always be saved later on? If you want to know how to be a Christian, drop the Protestantism, keep the Christianity.
So interesting thing, this DVD, I didn't choose to have 24 as part of this video. I just happened to be watching this because I was doing renovation work right over there, which you can't see because this is green screen. But happenstance or not, it actually worked out pretty well because I just went Jack Bauer on that mountain. Checking the pulse here. Yeah, that false teaching is dead. Oh, I just realized I should have made Jack Bauer the lifeguard and Kim the one who kept jumping in. That makes total sense too, because she was an idiot on that show. It's a character. It's okay to call her an idiot. This is how to be Christian. You all have a great day. Chloe. [Music]