Greek Tim laid out the grammatical structure of 1 Jn. 5:1 in connection with the present participle "believeth" with the Perfect tense "born of God" showing the causality between new birth and faith and none of his opponents could demonstrate any error in its exegesis. Instead, his oppoents constantly argued that he did not deal with the immediate context (but still could no offer any other explanation for the grammar). However, this same Greek structure is repeated throughout the context of the epistle of first John: 1Jo 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness (present tense participle) is born (perfect tense verb) of him. 1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born (Perfect tense verb) of God doth (Present tense verb) not commit sin; for his seed remaineth (present tense) in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born (perfect tense verb) of God. 1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth (present tense participle) is born (perfect tense verb) of God, and knoweth God. 1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth (present tense participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (perfect tense verb) of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born (perfect tense verb) of God overcometh (present tense verb) the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is born (perfect tense verb)of God sinneth (present tense verb) not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. So the grammar in 1 John 5:1 is not an exception to the context but the rule of the context as in EVERY CASE where new birth is mentioned the same grammar is used proving this is John's view that the new birth is causual to not merely faith, but to doing righteousness, loving God and man, overcoming sin, overcoming the world. Now who can argue that the new birth is not causual to overcoming sin? Not causual to overcoming the world? So the grammar of first John 5:1 is not exceptional and restricted to one verse or one instance concerning the new birth, but the rule is consistently used throughout the epistle of first John in EVERY INSTANCE the new birth is mentioned by John. That is a contextual fact that cannot be denied. Hence, context verifies this use in 1 Jn. 5:1 and this grammatical demand that the new birth is causual to not only faith, but to loving God, to doing righteousness, to overcoming sin, and overcoming the world. So now Greek Tim's opponents cannot say that the grammar of 1 Jn. 5:1 is not contextual as it is repeated in EVERY INSTANCE where John speaks of the new birth throughout this epistle. Now, his opponents are FORCED to go outside the entire context of the entire epistle of 1 John to do what? Overturn John's own repeated grammar consistently used throughout this epistle in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where the new birth is mentioned. Again, the grammar speaks for itself or can anyone prove otherwise? If you don't know Greek then it is best to keep your mouth shut instead of opening it and proclaiming your ignorance.