Let me give you some examples. I brought the argument that "born of God" in 1 John 5:1, 4 are perfect tense, so that a person could not be unborn. A person is born of God, so that birth is complete with the results ongoing. Spiritual birth is by nature permanent. This is indisputable. However, Mr. Hafley argued against it by saying that a person "born of the devil" can become "born of God," so being "unborn" is actually possible. If the actual tense of the verb says permanence, then it is permanent, unless somehwere else says someone can be unborn, and then those verses would contradict. The Bible doesn't contradict. I pointed out to Mr. Hafley that the Bible nowhere says that someone is "born of the devil." That didn't matter to Mr. Hafley. I also said that even if someone could show a verse that said that, it would still not prove that a person born of God can become unborn of God.
His other argument against this was that 1 John says that the person born of God is the one whoe believes (1 John 5:1), the one who loves (1 John 4:7) and the one who obeys (1 John 2:29). He kept saying that we are born of God because we believe, love, and obey. The text says that the one who believes, loves, and obeys IS born of God. They are already born of God. That they love, believe, and obey is how they KNOW they are born of God. I showed carefully that in grammar "is" doesn't mean "results in." I went to a seventh grade grammar book to show him that "is" means "equals," that the subject and the predicate are interchangeable. He didn't care. He had a point of view to protect and was willing to alter grammar and the meaning of words to do it. This is typical of everything that Mr. Hafley argued. Some of his arguments were much worse than this one.
So I'll let you decide. What do you think of the Hafley arguments there concerning 1 John 5:1, 4?