What has this to do with the challenge at hand? Both myself and my whole congregation have been taught this epistle, at a rate of one verse per week, 102 verses consecutively, for over two years.
If one verse at a time was good enough for our pastor teacher, it ought to be good enough for you to at least attempt it, with your whole Bible as the context and a good lexicon as a supplementary tool.
If you can't accomplish this, you haven't been properly discipled, as was the writer of the epistle, and the students (including παιδια = paidia first-graders in John's theological school) to whom the epistle was addressed.
Context establishes the meaning of all scripture.
Use all the context you want, but the invitation is for you to interpret that verse. The intent is to see whether the basis for your arguments is credible or not.
In this case, your inability to at least provide the grammatical sense for the verses 1 Jn 3:9, and your flawed interpretation that The God withholds salvation until after you die physically, gives the impression that you can neither explain the verse, nor its local context, nor the epistle, nor rightly divide the whole context, which is the Completed Holy Bible. It is not adequate to merely read the epistle. One needs to understand it, verse by verse, or it has no spiritual effect, eh?
You have proven yourself a carnival clown.
and:
Scriptures are meaningless to buffoons like you.
Making pejorative statements as you have about my person (carnival clown, buffoon, copious sinner) are direct deliberate personal offenses forbidden by the rules of participating in this forum.
Trying to demean your opponent's argument by calling him/her a cretin or criminal is a foolish ploy in debate, an illogical means of misdirection which only sinks your own argument for lack of any substance.
I could appeal to the Religion Moderator on this, but I will not. It is sufficient to let your own inept statements mark your level of maturity. (In fact, it would be a kindness to you if the RM were to expunge your related comments.)
Lack of your apology for such an insult will only make the matter worse for your image here.
What you and your congregation have been taught is how to twist the clear meaning of the epistle by breaking it up into easily managed sound bites, a little twist here, a little twist there, and voila! the meaning is conformed to easy grace churchianity, and the threat of Matthew 7:23 is averted for another set of pew warmers. (until the great white throne, that is)
Of course it is “good enough” for your nicolaitan; if he lets you find out what it really says he’ll loose you to Yeshua. Bye-bye parsonage, bye-bye steady pay check, hello job search.
I understand the one-verse-at-a-time apostasy. Been there, done that, wore out five t-shirts and a key chain. Now I demand the real word of Yehova.
The context is what proves what I said, and demolishes what churchianity wants it to say.
“Grammatical sense” of a single verse is facetious for a text that has gone through three or four translations to get to your sunday school lesson book. You have to at least take the chapter to solve the cultural murder mystery that all of the epistles are. The epistles had no verses nor chapters, and the present break-up of them makes no sense at all.
Every “rightly divider” of God’s word has a date with the great white throne. Paul’s use of those words was to separate the junk you love from the truth, to keep Timothy out of the trap you’ve fallen into.
.