The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7

Yes I know that you are not. But your unnamed source is!

 

On a point of fact, you should be aware that the Comma has had some eminent defenders long before the KJV Only era,
Matthew Henry and Robert Lewis Dabney for example. Dabney brought up the grammatical argument that @SavedByGrace has been using. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...508415DA/Why-1_John_5_7-8_is-in-the-Bible.pdf

 

Yes, I know. He is quoted by KJVOnly. He also believed slavery was legal and right.

 

I assume you are only referring to Dabney, though I have no idea what Matthew Henry believed about slavery. If his believing slavery was legal and right negates his ability to speak on another theological topic, then we in the Southern U.S. (and other places at other times) come up quite barren, without many theological forefathers who can speak to any issue. However, it is likely that being wrong about one thing is not in itself proof that we are wrong on a completely different topic. If so, who among us can speak to any subject?

 

and WHO told you this? I have never even seen this article before, nor any others online! Yet you and Conan assume things that are totally false! ALL of the OP is from my own personal studies in the Greek text, which I did originally in the 1980's, as I said earlier, because of A T Roberston saying that this verse was not genuine. Please get your facts right before posting silly replies!

 

I think that you are one of those rather idiotic people who say things for the sake of it!

 

what a DUMB remark! The USA was built using slaves, and the killing of thousands of Americans, known as Red Indians!

 

I think you should stop shooting from the hip and actually read my post properly. :Rolleyes
I wrote it in your support, and did not say that your work was not your own, but only that Dabney supported your position.

 

Hey, you are correct, my apologies! I did not see the full stop . after "has been using.", and assumed wrongly that you were suggesting that I took my OP from the link that you posted!

 

Yes only Dabney. Ones stand on slavery or freedom could be considered important. He wrote in defense of it. Or you could be right and it could be irrelevant. One can certainly be wrong about some things are right about others. But I will point out there are no scholar's today whatsoever that would agree with him about the extra words in first John.

 

The USA was built on freedom that happened to have slavery to stain it. Slavery did not build everything. Now that was a misleading mark. The vast overwhelming majority of people no matter what country they came from did not own slaves but did their own work. Freedom built most of America, slavery only a tiny portion.

 

Matthew Henry was very good regarding devotional commentary, bit was he a noted textual critic? And thought Dabney was a bigot and more in systematic theology?

 

How many of us are noted textual critics? Yet we often drone on about here as it we were.

And John Calvin approved the arrest and execution of Michael Servetus for heresy.

Why not drop the ad hominem arguments? They do not add anything to the equation.

 

Think there is a big difference between the views of Calvin and Dabney here though!

 

yes, Calvin supported and condoned MURDER!

 

Heresy was treated differently at that time, have to judge him based upon the times and culture!

 

Luke 9:54-56

"And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village."

NO excuses for Calvin, he could have said I do not support murder, but he did not, because he DID support murder!

 

So can we not also say of Dabney:

Why not be consistent? Is it just that you like what Calvin says and do not like what Dabney says?

 

No, just that Calvin did not burn the heretic himself alive!

 

he might as well have!