Calling all Calvinists

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

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.

[/qb]I 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.

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

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.

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

I doubt in either case they are better.

 

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

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.

 

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?

 

He says it's a purpose statement.

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.

 

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.