1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 4 of 5
  1. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #61 Inspector Javert, Mar 9, 2014
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
     
    #62 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
  3. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    He shows that other scriptures written with the same verb tenses do not support the order you would like 1 John 5:1 to show.

    Then he shows that many other scriptures like John 20:31 clearly address order and conclusively show faith precedes regeneration.

    It is an excellent argument and any honest scholar would admit you are beat.

    You seem to believe you can change reality by attrition. Not so.
     
    #63 Winman, Mar 9, 2014
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
     
    #64 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Wrong! He admits that every single solitary text using gennao prevous to 1 John 5:1 does demand our position and interpretation of the grammar. I have pointed this out, spelled it out and you have admitted to this twice already that he did agree. The only text he bolts from this admission is the one that does not fit his theology. Wow! What a revelation.
     
    #65 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
  6. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #66 Inspector Javert, Mar 9, 2014
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
     
    #67 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2014
  8. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    And he said this does not prove conclusive order. It simply shows faith and regeneration happen at the same moment, but it does not demonstrate cause either way.

    You just don't get it, your argument doesn't "prove" anything. It really doesn't.

    This is why I said in the thread that was closed that 1 John 5:1 is not a verse that can be used to prove regeneration precedes faith, because it doesn't prove that. It also does not prove faith precedes regeneration.

    Therefore, you must look to other scriptures for the answer, and there are numerous scriptures that do address order, and every single one of them supports faith preceding regeneration.

    I am sure you can sell this false argument to fellow Calvinists, because it is what they want to believe, but it is a false argument nonetheless.

    That doesn't seem to bother you.
     
    #68 Winman, Mar 9, 2014
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Read what he said. He admits to CAUSAL correlation rather than simeltaneous action.

    We can make two observations from these texts. First, in every instance the verb "born" (gennaô) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that precedes the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving, or believing.

    Second, no evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God. Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (3:9), and loving God (4:7). It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ. 31

    His only reason for rejecting this is not due to the grammar or usage where "born" is used but due to his own theological bias based upon misrepresentation of Jn 3:18 and 1 Jn. 5:10. In other words, he has no grammatical basis to differ since his evidences to differ are flawed.
     
    #69 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2014
  10. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #70 Inspector Javert, Mar 9, 2014
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
     
    #71 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
  12. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I read that, and I even quoted where he said if this was the only scripture addressing this subject he would accept the Reformed view, but he would not be dogmatic about it, because it was not without problems.

    You are misrepresenting this author, he does not agree with you. Yes, he agrees with you on one point, but this point does not conclusively prove order, and it does not address cause.

    I am not going to keep arguing with you. You would argue with a fence post, that is obvious. That doesn't make you correct, and in fact, you are not correct.
     
    #72 Winman, Mar 9, 2014
  13. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Exactly. You aren't going to get anywhere with this guy, he is a legend in his own mind.
     
    #73 Winman, Mar 9, 2014
  14. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #74 Inspector Javert, Mar 9, 2014
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
     
    #75 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
     
    #76 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2014
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    I never said he came to my conclusion - never said that! I only pointed out that he not merely admitted to the Greek grammar in every case of the use of the perfect tense "gennao" in the epistle of John and admitted that he would have to come to that conclusion if it were not for his MISINTERPRETED PROOF TEXTS (Jn. 3:18; 1 Jn. 5:10) that he based his opposition SOLELY upon. I have provided the evidence he totally misintepreted those texts and every argument he presents after those misrepresentations are based upon those misrepresentations. Hence, he has NO GRAMMATICAL basis to reject what he formly admitted that must be the case unless he could provide something to get around it. He could not! HIs attempts are flawed. he mishandles his proof texts and I have shown how he mishandled them and no one has addressed that evidence yet.
     
    #77 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
  18. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    So what he agreed in one point? That doesn't prove your view. It simply establishes that a person born of God believes, it doesn't establish which came first or which caused which.

    You are not a true academic, no academic would make the assumptions you make. I am not a scholar, don't claim to be, but I would never come to your conclusions from this one verse or this one word. You have to look at all scripture, and the vast majority of scripture supports faith preceding regeneration.

    It is clear to anybody that you are a person with a presupposition in search of a proof text. Plain as day.
     
    #78 Winman, Mar 9, 2014
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Yes, and why should I not? Neither you or Winman have addressed the evidences that I presented where he misintepreted the only two proof texts to base his opinion upon! I do have sufficient training in Greek grammar to be confident in my analysis and so why should I not say "I have proved" my point when NO ONE has offered anything to overthrow it????

    In order to escape another personal attack by both of you I would have to concede you are right and I am wrong when the facts do not support that.

    Address the basis for my proof or simply restrain yourselves from wallowing in the pit of personal attacks.
     
    #79 The Biblicist, Mar 9, 2014
  20. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #80 Inspector Javert, Mar 9, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2014
Page 4 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...