Featured The Grammar of 1 Jn. 5:1 is repetitive

You don't have to "assume' anything as he ADMITS that John NEVER makes that kind of substitution and yet he makes it anyway in full light that John does not! That is willful misrepresentation and willful misrepresentation is lying.

 

Is that your criteria for authority? I have a ThM from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary and Landmark Baptist Theological Seminary and a previous B.A. to boot. So now, what does that mean to you????????? Let us see if you are consistent in your approach here????

 

True, there are many terms that can be used. He is in "error"! He is "intentionally misrepresenting" John. His argument is "false." He is telling a lie! All semantics!

 

Neither of you fellas will deal with substance! Both of you ignore the grammatical evidence I provided to show this writer is wrong. However, that is where the basis for truth is determined. Instead both of you want to argue about frivilous secondary matters or just keep repeating his errors without dealing with the evidence that may prove his assertions are not true. Why? I imagine it is because both of your are personally unqualified to delve into these matters although you want to quote people you are not qualified even to defend.

 

You are stating absolute falsehoods! I presented nothing but grammatical facts found in EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY use of gennao in first John. Your writer admitted that every single solitary use of gennao in first John was exactly as I stated. Hence, his position is on "thin ice" or NO ICE becuase he has NOTHING to support his refusal to accept what he acknowledges to be factual.

Second, his response and examples are flawed just as your responses are flawed. Do you deal with the evidence they are flawed??? No! You ignore the evidences, you ignore the very principles necessary to rightly divide the Word of God and just BLINDLY accept this man's assertions because YOU ASSUME ARMINIANISM IS TRUE and thus cherry pick while completely ignoring the exegetical details that expose your assumption to be false.

If your accusation had any merit you could confront and deal with the evidences I presented in a exegetical fashion! But you don't because you can't and so you play your little games of run and jump, ignore and assert.

 

FACT #1 - your author jumps out of first john to John 3:18 and then IGNORES the negative particle and IGNORES the words "condemned already" in the development of his flawed argument.

FACT #2 - your author fails to point out that making God a liar can only refer to the state of mind of the one in unbelief and it is that that state of mind perfect tense that is causal to his unbelief.

Here are the only two examples he can find to attempt to overthrow what he alreadly admitted MUST be causual in every single solitary scripture where gennao is found in the first episitle of John. He already admitted that no sane person would argue that overcoming sin, overcoming the world, loving God, doing righteousness is not consquential to the cause of having been perfect tense "born of God." Yet he makes an attempt to overthrow what he already acknowledge must be true in every single one of these cases with the exception of 1 Jn 5:1 which uses the very same construction.

Any objective person can see his arguments are totally flawed and it is only pure bias that is the basis for his arguments as the arguments themselves are flawed becuase he ignores immediate grammar in the same verse, immediate contextual problems in the very same verses to his argument.

 

The president of Southern Theological Seminary went to Mid-America Baptist Theological seminary. So what????

This is the kind of frivilous arguments you are forced to flee to because you have no exegetical based substance to support your biases. You can't deal directly with the exegetical evidences I presented because you acknowledge you are completely unqualified to deal with such as you have no Greek background.

So why do you select certain Greek men to defend you? You can't verify or defend their interpretations? PURE BIAS is why you select them. I don't run to anyone to defend my own exposition because I am sufficiently acquainted to defend myself and provide exegetical based arguments. Why enter waters that are you admit are too deep for you????

 

This is why these threads are shut down because you fellas can't deal with substance and so you turn it into personal attacks.

This shows the weakness of your arguments and position when you reduce it to personal derogatory attacks.

In a previous post I clearly stated the exegetical based evidences for disagreeing with your writing and the best you can do is talk about the institution and degrees of certain men or reduce the discussion to attacks on my person.

 

I repost the OP because no one has yet overturned it. The writer you appealed to admitted the sound exegetical basis of these texts and did not attempt to deny it but admitted that doing righteousness, loving God, overcoming sin, overcoming the world are all CONSEQUENCES of the new birth and yet attempts to overturn the only other text found in 1 John because it does not fit his soterioloigcal bias.

Every argument he provided was flawed and I showed the flaws but NO RESPONSE from you fella's except talking about a degree that is equal to my own degree. No response except attacking my person.

Let other readers be the judge of who in this debate has provided sound exegetical evidence and who has not.

 

That is another lie! I never bragged about anything! I never brought up Seminary degrees - YOU DID! - I simply responded to your brag in your writer. Do you know how to spell "hypocrit" and "liar"????

This is the best that Winman can do - personal attacks, misrepresentations and things that make no difference in this discussion whatsoever. Such responses are not fruits of the Spirit but have their source in the flesh. I refuse to lower myself to such a level from this point forward.