YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

1. A Very Personal Salvation - Parminder Biant (2 Oct 2026) TIN UK — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

1. A Very Personal Salvation - Parminder Biant (2 Oct 2026) TIN UK

Institute for Prophetic Research · 5,152 words · 26 min read · EN-ORIG

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of 1. A Very Personal Salvation - Parminder Biant (2 Oct 2026) TIN UK by Institute for Prophetic Research on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

[snorts] >> Holy God, we want to give you praise and thanks. That we have the privilege of learning. Of trying to understand your word. And to discuss and share our faith with one another. So that we might come to a pure understanding of the truth. In Jesus' name. Amen. For the translators, I've um posted a

quote.

For those of you who want to look it up. It's The Great Controversy. Page 556. Let me double check.

Paragraph three.

And uh Just going to read another one as well. But not right now.

Okay, I'll find that one. Because we might not uh have all all of us might not have the reference for that one. So I'm sure we're all aware

that teachers in the movement have begun to systematically and radically change what our movement's understanding of the truth is. >> [snorts] >> For some time now, there's been a shift from an individualistic view of salvation to an institutional or a corporate one. >> [snorts]

>> Just want to remind everybody. Unlike when the Sunday law studies were had begun to be taught,

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimitedor

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

where people had radically different views of the Sunday law,

those who are currently teaching um in leading roles in the movement today,

all view things the same way. That doesn't mean they explain things the same way, or they might have slightly different views on certain topics. So, when I or Curtis or Blessing or any of the other teachers present, and I say something slightly different to others,

I see that indication of a healthy movement. I don't see it as being problematic. And if you spot differences that you think are big or significant, uh please feel free to bring it up with whoever you want to speak to and get clarification.

So, I want to try to clarify things that I have said, not what others have said.

I think people may have heard me say the following,

that when we speak about salvation, we're speaking about something that's institutional,

and not individual. So, I just want to make a comment on that to try to clarify. We've spoken about institutions for a long time now. And if you're not comfortable or familiar with how we handle that model, you'll continue to struggle with what's been taught, at least by me.

So, when we come to an institution, I've tried to describe this in various different ways, different models or images.

So, I've done it through the concept of law or a constitution. And when it's described that way, there's a book or a scroll. And this book or scroll is put away somewhere. It can be checked and referenced. But it cannot be changed. And it stands separate and independent from the individual, from you.

You cannot go and change that constitution.

And also what you're not allowed to do is have some private interpretation. Now, everything that I've just said should sound familiar to you because it's how we used to view the Bible. The way I've just described that should remind you of how we dealt with the Bible. And the reason for that similarity

is because you can consider the Bible to also be an institutional um object, if I can say that. You're all familiar with the United States Constitution and many countries have their own.

And I think it's accurate to say that the Constitution is the highest law that everyone goes to. So, as an example, SCOTUS they will refer to the Constitution when someone creates a law the government and it's challenged they will take that law I'm going to call it a human-made rule. And check it against the template, the

Constitution. And they will decide whether it's valid or not. If it's not, they throw it out. Any questions on that? So, there's another way to look at an institution. So, the image I'm going to give here and everything that I'm saying uh thus far is not new. There's a church. It's a structure.

And as soon as you consider it to be a structure that has a purpose, it then meets all the crack- the criteria or characteristics of being an institution.

And I've drawn the image of a literal building. Because the building itself is considered to be an institution.

As well as the organization behind that. So, this church

is built of bricks or stone. And each of those bricks if you looked at them on their own they would not resemble a church. But church is composed of many of these bricks. And depending on how you put the bricks together you will get a different building. You'll get a different institution. So if you organize those bricks in one

way, you'll get a church. And if you organize those bricks in another fashion you'll get a courthouse. Is everybody okay with that concept? So the thing that can trip you up is that this brick here can be considered to be a person. So when you get enough people together and put them in it into a particular shape

or structure or organization they can almost miraculously become a church which is an institution. And that institution is made up of many people. If you organize those people in another way, they can produce a courthouse or a government building.

So, these are two very different ways of understanding what an institution is. So, the first model I gave was that there's a law, a book. And we know that the book was written by someone in the distant past.

We know that they were humans. But, once those people have gone, the book remains. And it has certain properties which define it as being an institution. And the main one that we would consider is durability. And you can see just in the imagery that that book has got nothing to do with people.

The institution doesn't need people anymore. Everyone could die, literally, and the institution would remain. Admittedly, it wouldn't be of much use because it doesn't serve anybody. But, it remains. It's independent of people. So we can if we can hold that model of an institution in our minds.

And then at the same time look at a different way of thinking about an institution.

Which is the building. I'll pick in a second. So that building is made of bricks. And in the imagery or the symbol when you go to visit uh a building you don't go to look for bricks. You go to give honor or respect to the building itself. You don't care about the individual bits.

So the structure itself is what's significant, what's important. But we know it's built of something. And if those bricks begin to crumble or get stolen like um the pyramids of Giza you see that the building ends up not being fit for use. And in that model the institution only remains because the people are

Without people, the institution does not exist. So, that's an equally valid model of an institution, but it's quite different.

In presentations, what's being done often is that both of these models for institutions are being used seamlessly.

Without explaining at that moment we're using say model A or model B. And there are there are still further subtleties to all of this as well. So, you need to be able to understand how institutions and individuals are being handled. If you don't, you can either misunderstand what's being taught,

which will end up leading to a misunderstanding of the truth. And Natalie?

>> You know where you've put law of the Bible and up the off opposite would be law the highest is the the Constitution is the law so it's kind of opposite. Can you just give me a definition what the highest law in the Bible is? Is it just equal rights under the law?

With the Bible. Sorry, I forgot you translate. The I'll just say it one more time so >> I'll do it. >> Yeah, okay. >> So, Natalie's asked about a graphic that's on the board currently. And I think there's a misunderstanding. So, if I put a petition here the picture of these two books

is separate and distinct from the writing on the left. What I've said there on the left institution a definition of institution is law. Or another word that can be used is constitution. And in a country or an organization or a group the constitution is the highest law. It was not connected to the Bible that

statement. Is that okay? >> Hello. Thank you. Can we say that the highest law in the Bible is equal rights under the law?

>> I don't want to comment on that. People have different views of what is important or unimportant in the Bible. I'm not saying I disagree with what you've said. See what I mean? >> Uh you when you gave us a two a model of the institution you said uh it's belong to us to

navigate between the two.

In order to not uh misstep or misunderstand uh what the speaker is saying. So, my question is knowing that there are two models of institution would it uh would it would it be uh I will do it differently. Uh why is belong to the uh people to make the difference between the two

model and not the speaker?

>> Is that Is that the summary of your question? >> Um yes. >> Okay, so I can answer that. The reason why I brought this up was a veiled apology. A hidden apology.

Is excuse a correct word for apology? Cuz I don't think it's excuse. >> Ask for apology. >> I'm apologizing. >> When you say I apologize >> I'm sorry. >> You you ask for forgiveness or sorry etc. So >> Yes. >> excuse in France is the same. >> That's right. So I'm not blaming individuals

yourselves. But if you don't navigate this you will get lost. And there are many teachers doing many things.

It's a teacher's responsibility to teach. Like me some teachers are not that good. So you're either stuck with bad teachers or you can help yourself and be aware of the issues. I apologize if I have misled people with these two models in the past.

I'm not trying to pretend it's your responsibility to sort our problems out. But because we're all human and we don't do a very good job you don't a good job listening or studying what we teach and we're just not good teachers. So, between us none of us are very good. So, I'm just highlighting the fact

that it seems to get tripped up.

If it's about this tripping up, I want to move on and not continue. >> Can I Can we just say Are Are you saying we when people are teaching you have to know the difference between what >> I'm not going to answer your question that way on that cuz I've just said what

I've said. >> And if I don't understand, someone else doesn't understand. >> All I'm saying is when people talk about institutions and individuals there are at least two ways to view it. Sometimes you have to view it as only the institution and sometimes you view as individuals make the institution.

So, the reason why I've brought that up is to address this first line. When we talk about salvation and people are talking about an institutional or individual salvation my understanding is and it may be wrong The the institution does not need saving. This movement doesn't need to be saved. Having been created by people

once it has reached perfection and if you remember the title for my last presentation you have to take the term perfection with a pinch of salt.

Carefully. Intelligently. But once it's been created like the book of the law has been written it's finished. It's purpose now is to serve. Not to be served. So, this movement once it has been created and it has reached perfection and the way marks that you can use to know that it has at a conceptual level

are the Sunday law and the close of probation. Once you reach those way marks you will know even if you can't see it that the movement has matured and reached perfection. That's what perfection is, maturity. It's now here to serve the people, the individual. Individuals are being saved, not institutions.

We know that the movement according to Daniel 2 is the stone. Everybody comfortable with that concept? And in Daniel 2, what is the stone described as later in the chapter?

It not mountain, it becomes a mountain. Not threshing instrument. Kingdom of heaven. So, I'm just going to call it the kingdom of God. Can't remember if it says God or heaven. Are we okay with that? So, we should know we should be comfortable that the kingdom of heaven or God can be understood

as existing in different places. There's a place somewhere in the universe called heaven. That's the kingdom. The whole universe is the kingdom. And this planet, Earth, is also the kingdom. Or at least part of the people here are the kingdom. So, this movement is understood to be the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is going to move from

Earth to heaven.

The kingdom doesn't need salvation. What needs salvation or saving are the humans on this planet. And the traditional way of understanding that is if you move from Satan's kingdom to God's kingdom, you're saved. So, you may have heard me say that we're not worried about individual salvation. Now, we're worried about movement salvation or we're worried

about the institution.

When I've said that, I'm not negating people's individual salvation and how important it is.

When I have said that, I have connected it with a phrase that President Kennedy used. Stop worrying about yourselves. Don't be so self-centered. Don't ask what the kingdom can do for you, save you, ask what you can do for the kingdom. That's what I've meant when I've said stop thinking about an individualistic

salvation.

Because unless the war is won, the great controversy, nothing changes. There is no end. So, that's what I've meant when I've said stop asking about your individual salvation. If you die eternally, so be it. At least the war would have been won. I think everybody is familiar with the mili- with the military

uh symbol that's embedded in what I've just said.

Does anybody have any questions on that.

But let's not worry about ourselves, Natalie. Let's worry about the mission.

>> Uh so, one could die individually for salvation. >> What I've just said is the lead up to where we are now. I'm trying to explain the subject of salvation when we're spoken about institutional salvation or individual salvation. It wasn't a discussion that some of us can die.

Hope that answers your question. Okay, she said no, but it doesn't matter. I want to deal with another point. Them and us. Now, you may have heard me say there is no them and us.

I'm I want to clarify that there definitely is them and us. There's them, the rest, and there's us, the 144,000. We are not them, and they're not us. We're completely different. And we can put all of us in a bucket. And if we looked at the people in the bucket, we could easily identify who should be

there and who shouldn't. And it's the same with the them bucket. There's a difference between them and us.

When that term has been used, there's no them and us. It's been referred in the context. Women and men Women and men are not the same. Black people and white people are not the same. There are many differences between Adults and children are not the same. And yet, all of those different groups are all

human, which makes them the same. They're homo sapiens.

So, it's our responsibility, collectively, to divide teaching correctly. It's not a contradiction to say there is no them and us and that there is a them and us.

You just need to understand the context. Now, that may have not been explained in the past, which is why I'm trying to do it now.

There's no them and us. This is to do with the reward.

And if the reward is the same for everybody, it becomes difficult to use the word salvation. So, I'm going to put no salvation.

Because it becomes hard to conceptualize what you're being saved from. Except if you're going to say a bad environment. Because in the past, you weren't just saved from a bad environment, you were saved from bad people.

So, I'm going to put environment.

So, we're saved from a bad environment, but we're not saved from bad people.

The reward is the same for everybody. So, there's now them and us. That is what is currently being taught. >> [clears throat] >> And there's a large however you define large

There's a large body of members in our movement who do not agree with this. >> [clears throat] >> So, this is under question.

If it's correct or not. Because it's not in agreement with the spirit of prophecy and it's not in agreement with the Bible.

As they are written. So, on the left-hand side, there is a them and us. So, I have a couple of weeks ago, I think it was, I got asked a question. Why Why the movement if there's no them and us?

What's the point in being in the movement? And so, I answered that in two parts. Personal edifica- um education. >> [clears throat] >> and sacrifice.

We all know that both the Bible and the spirit of prophecy talk about a final generation. The final generation can be understood in different ways depending on what passage you're reading.

But it means the last at very simple level. In order for the great controversy to end some change has to happen in the status quo. I'm not sure where you think that change began. I'm going to suggest it was at the time of the end. When the time of the end came that's when the change of the status quo

happened. And that would mark the end or we might call it the final generation. And what that requires is individuals coming together. Individuals that come together

>> So I just have to gather my thoughts again because I got distracted. So these individuals have to come together because they realize something. Think about the concept of the personal is political. They realize that the problems that exist in this world with humanity are not just their own ones.

They're not unique to them. They're a political or institutional problem. So they get together and they do something. What they do is create an institution to address the problem. And that's what the Bible and Ellen White called the 144,000. That's what I'm suggesting. The status quo exists then the time of the end

a group of people realize the problems that they experience in their lives or what they see in the world is not an individualistic thing, it's a systemic problem. Or a political one in the term of that phrase. So, they all come together to try and deal with the issue. You may be familiar with using the term

radical feminists. They got together several decades ago. Realized it's a problem outside of their individual experience. It was a corporate problem.

And they create an institution or a movement. We could just call it feminism to fix the problem. So, if you're familiar with that idea, that's what I'm saying has been done. Group of people got together. They say if we don't make a change everything will carry on and as it always has. They create an institution

which is designed to solve or address the problem. The problem the status quo. And all of that is the 144,000. And those people who got together and did that it's not the Gentiles or the them. It's a small group of people that did that. So, I want to say there is a them and an

us. And I've got several hands. If they were not prepared to make that sacrifice, which is that's why I've used the term sacrifice, think Think of those women who became feminist who sacrificed their lives for the cause.

If the 144,000 do not exist as an institution or the stone or the movement, the end doesn't happen. It just continues. You received payback. A benefit in making that sacrifice. You get personally educated. You may consider that's not good payment. I'm saying God expected and hoped that you might be willing to give up

your life for others. You live a very different life to the rest of the world. They can party and you cannot. They can live a crazy life. You're not allowed to. >> There are many women who could be Is it tradwives? Is that the term? But the feminists couldn't. They had to make a sacrifice and it cost

them something. They were not allowed to live their traditional life. And neither are you. Neither are you. The you being the 144,000, the members of this movement. I'm not discussing what the sacrifices are. But be sure. I think you should be sure. But there is a us and a them. And there is

things are expected of us that are not expected of them. I'll stop there for a moment. I'll take three questions. Titus, then Brian, then Natalie. Titus? >> Um It's question that's related to what you said that the people come to together to create a movement. So, I'm trying to understand if they create

or they just realize some laws or some something that was that was supposed to be the right one.

Institution is law or constant constitution. Because you said institution is law law or constitution, so the people don't create it, but they come and realize

>> Let me ask you a question. Is a church building a law or a constitution? >> Neither. >> Neither. Because a law and constitution are the same thing. So, the church doesn't exist does not exist without the bricks. And it takes more than bricks to make a church. The bricks have to be organized in a

specific way. What's your question now? >> I guess then I was like thinking of saying law of equality and we just come and understand it better and create not create it, but to >> So, everybody can see that it's easy to get tripped up with those two models. And not have the mental flexibility to

jump from one to the other.

Someone and it wasn't you created a constitution. Let's say that was Tess. She wrote the book of the law. And all you're required to do is read it and implement it. If you want to go down the path of equality.

If you think she made a mistake it will take more than you to write an amendment. Because we could amend it. Which means add to it. But it would take more than one person to do that. It'd be a collective exercise. Does that help? Right? >> The two examples you gave of uh

them and us the one bucket as

and the other bucket had the 144,000 and they are different.

So in that the 144,000 the only difference that matters in their salvation is that is that the 144,000 uh have a personal sacrifice for the institution.

My question is this institution, this movement seems to fill the bucket of them rather than us.

Because we are not actively engaged. We can see the problems out there. We discuss them. But we don't have the authority or power to engage. >> What was your question? >> The question is shouldn't we be them then us? Right now you you we have said we have said that we are the 144,000.

>> Define what them is. >> Them being the rest of humanity. >> So you said uh the rest is >> Whoever they are outside of the 144,000. >> And us and the 144 is the movement. >> Yeah. >> And your question is? >> We do not have the characteristics of the 144,000 in our

action. >> What do you expect in the the action would be that we don't have?

>> You gave the example of um What's the women's movement called? They died for the cause.

So, what is our sacrifice as the movement? >> Okay.

>> I had a question about the book as well.

It was different. I think what you you said when you look into the book it >> What's your question? >> It's coming. When you look into the book >> yet. >> When you look into the book it um you you see those who should be there and who shouldn't. Is that the same for

them?

>> Are you asking is any one of the 144,000 in the world. Is that your question? >> They're acting like the world. >> Is your Is your question is any of the 144,000 in the world? >> Yes, I'm asking is that what you meant when you said you look into the bucket and there's some that should be there

and some that shouldn't. >> There are no 144,000 out there. >> I never said that. >> And there's none of them in here.

>> What did you mean when you said you look into the bucket? You see >> Oh. When you look in our bucket all you see is the 144,000. If you look in the other bucket all you see is everything that's not 144,000. >> I agree, but that's not what you said. You said you see what should and

shouldn't.

>> Thank you for clarifying what I didn't say.

>> I didn't say that. I said what you did say and you haven't explained to me what you meant by that. >> What I meant was thank you for clarifying what I didn't explain properly. The bucket on the right only has us. No one else is in there.

If you're okay with that. So, I don't think this is going to answer Brian's question directly. I want to suggest this. I said there must a change must happen to the status quo. And I said the time of the end is when it happens. When was that?

Someone says 1989. Natalie. 2024 is not the time of the end. 2024 is not the time of the end. Another one or we going to stick with this? Are you just saying that?

Are you offering 1798? Okay, so charity is not a No one's offering anything besides 1989. So, I'll offer 1798.

So, we have a history

which have got which has got five kingdoms. So, in Revelation 17 territory. How would we describe this in the language that I have been talking about in the last few moments?

That is the the status quo. Status quo means nothing's changing. So, in the past, we would call this Satan's kingdom. So, I'll put that. Then what happens? There's a change that happens at the time of the end. Are we okay with that? So, now we're in Revelation 13 territory. And we have the sixth.

And how would you describe the sixth? Satan's kingdom? God's kingdom. I don't know if we're comfortable with putting God's kingdom here. Because people look at the United States and they see a mess from beginning to end. And yet that is not in agreement with inspiration. If it's a lamb-like beast, it's it's a representation of God's kingdom.

And then a change happens in the United States. We have a seventh kingdom. And that's a dragon.

And where are we now? We're back to the status quo, yes? So, we're back to Satan's kingdom. So, if you go to Daniel 2, we've been taught with that imagery that God's kingdom and the kingdoms of this world are two separate things. Let's call it Satan's kingdom. But we find that there's a problem now.

And what's the problem? Because what we've done is we've made the mountain and then the stone as God's kingdom. Is that correct? Is that You are you okay for me to call it God's kingdom? The stone and the mountain that came before it. Is this God's kingdom? Then what's the statue?

You You just call it the kingdom. You're forced to call it Satan's kingdom, aren't you? Because there's four of them. But we know there's a problem that many people haven't considered in the early days of their experience. Tell me where you put kingdom number six. On the left or the right? Where's number six?

Left or right? It's on the right. The sixth is here because this is the movement. Are we okay with that? But we've just said that the sixth kingdom is God's kingdom. So already you know Daniel 2 is a very childlike, not childish, It's a very childlike overview of how this war is happening.

We're going to pause and then we're going to close the class. And then we're going to go to Revelation 12. Cuz in Revelation 12 there's a woman. There's two women we know. One's identified and one isn't. Is this woman good or bad? She gave birth to the son of God. She's good. Who is she?

In terms of Daniel 2, who is she? The left or the right?

So, she's God's movement. We agree with that? What we're going to see in the next class, this is not new, is that she's God's movement, but she also is what? If you can guess. You're also going to see that she's the sixth kingdom, too. She ends up becoming both. Not many people have seen that in

Revelation 12. And when you can see that, I'm hoping it's going to begin to answer Brian's question. Which you if I can rephrase it like this. We're not really doing much, are we? Let's pray. Holy God, we want to thank you for your goodness and your mercy, that we might be able to understand

your plans better, that we might be willing to seek to spend and be spent.

That we would give our lives to you and that you would use our lives for your benefit. In Jesus' name. Amen.