Calling all Calvinists

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, I can forgive you for your lack of knowledge of the facts on 1 John 5:7.

Why would you forgive me? I didn't do anything wrong? I am well aware of the facts concerning 1 John 5:7.

But, to say that you "don't care" about the true reading here, has dropped you 80% in my estimation!

Thankfully, I didn't say I didn't care about the true reading. I said, I don't really care which position you take. If you, or Thomas, or anyone else disagrees with me, that is fine. I have studied the issue and am comfortable with my position. I think it best deals with the facts of the case.

I have alread dealt with the issue with the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:7, and you can see one of my responses here, http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2315/3.html?[/quote]<font size=I" target="_blank">[url]http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2315/3.html?

[/qb]I[/url] have likely already seen what you might say about it. I don't need to rehash that again. My point was that 1 John 5:7 is ultimately not about grammar, but about textual transmission.

With regards to my own qualifications on Greek. I am not one to boast of them.

I would hope not. That's not what I was asking.

As I consider that whether you are a scholar, or layperson, is not the point, but sound understanding and correct interpretation.

The reason I ask is becuase you have demonstrated a lack of sound understanding and correct interpretation, particularly on the hina clause with a subjunctive.

What would you care if I told you that I have a First Class Honours in Classical, and Biblical Greek? Would you then consider my arguments any more?

If it were true, then yes. But if that were true, you would likely not say what you are sayign about the subjunctive case.

With regards to Greek scholars better than Wallace. Are you kidding? Dr. J. Harold Greenlee is without doubt streets ahead than Wallace in Greek. And, so is, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates.

I doubt in either case they are better.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Wallace has tried to down-play the Greek grammar here because of his presuppositions that the text is not genuine anyway.

The grammar is a very strong argument against the authenticity of the comma, as I have argued in other places.

Yet Larry rates Wallace as the best Greek scholar today!

Really?? Where did I do that? I believe what I said was "one of the best." That is far from a hoot; that is undeniable, even if you don't like Wallace. His handle on Greek is very good.

 

[russell55]

Icthus,

If you prefer Greenlee to Wallace, why don't you look up what he says about this clause in John 3:16?

And what he says about the subjunctive in a hina clause?

Why don't you post it here, too?

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by icthus:
TCassidy, exactly my point. Wallace has tried to down-play the Greek grammar here because of his presuppositions that the text is not genuine anyway.

Dr. Wallace does not down play the gender discordance. He simply dismisses the gender discontinuity as being the result of personification. He doesn't down-play it, he explains it and dismisses it.

I disagree with his explanation, but he certainly acknowledges the discordance exists, he just believes it is less important than many others believe it to be.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by russell55:
Icthus,

If you prefer Greenlee to Wallace, why don't you look up what he says about this clause in John 3:16?

And what he says about the subjunctive in a hina clause?

Why don't you post it here, too?

I don't see Greelee in his grammar on John 3:16.

Regarding the subjunctive in a "hina" clause, I direct your attention to 1 Thessalonians 2:16;

"forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that (hina) they may be saved (sothosin)"

The preaching to the Gentiles does not "guarantee" that they will be saved, as they would have to repent. Paul here says "in the hope", though "uncertain", that these Gentiles he would witness to would accept the Gospel.

 

[russell55]

I don't see Greelee in his grammar on John 3:16.

He says it's a purpose statement.

The preaching to the Gentiles does not "guarantee" that they will be saved,

The statement doesn't speak to the certainty or uncertainty of the outcome, but to the purpose of the preaching. A purpose statement--in and of itself--doesn't guarantee anything. It just carries the idea of purpose (or result) rather than certainty or uncertainty.

All that means is that there doesn't HAVE to be uncertainty for a subjunctive when it's in a jina clause. Whether it's certain or not depends on things other than the use of the subjunctive itself.

In the opening post of this thread, you argued the uncertainty of the outcome in John 3:16 based on the use of the subjunctive. This was pretty much your whole argument: use of subjunctive = uncertain outcome.

All anyone has to do is show that this isn't always the case, which has been done, and your argument goes down the toilet.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't see Greelee in his grammar on John 3:16.

He says it's a purpose statement.

The preaching to the Gentiles does not "guarantee" that they will be saved,

The statement doesn't speak to the certainty or uncertainty of the outcome, but to the purpose of the preaching. A purpose statement--in and of itself--doesn't guarantee anything. It just carries the idea of purpose (or result) rather than certainty or uncertainty.

All that means is that there doesn't HAVE to be uncertainty for a subjunctive when it's in a jina clause. Whether it's certain or not depends on things other than the use of the subjunctive itself.

In the opening post of this thread, you argued the uncertainty of the outcome in John 3:16 based on the use of the subjunctive. This was pretty much your whole argument: use of subjunctive = uncertain outcome.

All anyone has to do is show that this isn't always the case, which has been done, and your argument goes down the toilet. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeh, but the outcome of the preaching is "uncertain". Paul says that the Jews forbade the preaching to the Gentiles, "in order that the may experience Salvation as well". His preaching "MAY" result in their being "saved". No doubt the subjunctive in a hina clause here is clearly "uncertain"

Argue all you will, but it reamins that this is what is meant here.

 

[russell55]

Yeh, but the outcome of the preaching is "uncertain".

I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that the subjunctive in a jina clause has to point to uncertainty.

If it doesn't always mean the outcome is uncertain, then your argument in the opening post is moot.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yeh, but the outcome of the preaching is "uncertain".

I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that the subjunctive in a jina clause has to point to uncertainty.

If it doesn't always mean the outcome is uncertain, then your argument in the opening post is moot. </font>[/QUOTE]