Regeneration does precede Redemption

[John of Japan]

Still, I have not articulated what I am thinking about the substantive participle. I don't think it is suggesting how the ones believing became believing, specifically. I think the perfect passive verb generally suggests why they are believing.

Let me employ this example: Let's replace the substantive participle with the generic "Christians." After all, regardless of one's theological persuasion, we all agree that Christians do believe in order to be saved and they are "believers." Doing so, we can restate the sentence this way:

"Christians have been born of God."

Of course, as most of the commentaries say, it is important what "the believing ones" are believing in--that Jesus is the Christ. I think "Christians" encapsulates that, at least for this example.

Now, taking the generic "Christians" in combination with the perfect passive verb (eliminating the discussion about the participle) it would be understood that the subject, "Christians," are that way because of God's past work, would it not?

This is what I'm getting at. The passive nature of the verb is, I think, the most important aspect to this verse. It shows God's work in the past--lasting into the present. The plain reading, then should understand that "the ones believing" (a simple fact) are believing due to God's birthing action in the past.

Blessings,

The Archangel

So if I am understanding this, you are giving causative force to the Greek perfect passive verb, is that it? I was unaware that the perfect passive had causative force. Please find a grammarian who agrees with you.

Consider the following sentence: "The running man was shoved into the light pole and injured." We here have in the English a similar sentence grammatically to 1 John 5:1, complete with a gerund modifying the subject, and a past passive for the verb. By your reasoning, the reason the man was running is that he was shoved into a light pole. And the person who shoved him into a light pole was causing him to run. Do you see my point?

 

[Havensdad]

Actually, English is my first language. I minored in English in college, have worked professionally as a book editor and proof reader, and have had a book and a couple of pamphlets published in English.

What the translators of the various English Bibles you mention did is this. They used the English noun "everyone" to represent the Greek substantival participle, since the Greek word for that is not a noun.

The word "believes" in the English is a verb, true, but what of it? You are not saying that the English should trump the Greek, are you? Would you care to oppose my Greek analysis with a Greek grammarian? Or is the English more inspired than the Greek to you?

Time for church, have to run.

I am stating that the Greek translators who translated this passage, either disagree with you as to the thrust of the passage, or purposefully translated this passage incorrectly.

I cannot believe the second, so I must believe the first. The thrust that you are trying to present, could have easily been represented in the text, in English. It is not.

In English, there is not doubt left in this passage that belief in the present is dependent upon having been born again in the past. If I state "everyone who is in this theater, has purchased a ticket" the ticket purchase is logically and temporally prior to the person's presence in the theater. You can say whatever you like, but the translators would either have to be blundering buffoons in Greek, or lousy as all get out at English, to make such a simple, stupid translational error.

 

[webdog]

I am stating that the Greek translators who translated this passage, either disagree with you as to the thrust of the passage, or purposefully translated this passage incorrectly.

I cannot believe the second, so I must believe the first. The thrust that you are trying to present, could have easily been represented in the text, in English. It is not.

In English, there is not doubt left in this passage that belief in the present is dependent upon having been born again in the past. If I state "everyone who is in this theater, has purchased a ticket" the ticket purchase is logically and temporally prior to the person's presence in the theater. You can say whatever you like, but the translators would either have to be blundering buffoons in Greek, or lousy as all get out at English, to make such a simple, stupid translational error.

Why can't you believe the second?

 

[Havensdad]

So if I am understanding this, you are giving causative force to the Greek perfect passive verb, is that it? I was unaware that the perfect passive had causative force. Please find a grammarian who agrees with you.

Consider the following sentence: "The running man was shoved into the light pole and injured." We here have in the English a similar sentence grammatically to 1 John 5:1, complete with a gerund modifying the subject, and a past passive for the verb. By your reasoning, the reason the man was running is that he was shoved into a light pole. And the person who shoved him into a light pole was causing him to run. Do you see my point?

Not at all. The difference in this sentence, and the one in question, is that in 1 John 5:1 there is a direct correlative presented between believing and being born again. The "everyone" thrown to the front of the sentence, brings this emphasis out even more, especially in the Greek. Every single person who is believing, has been (completed action in the past) born again.

And please. I am well aware of the aspect/time issue, but their are quite a number of Greek scholars, who maintain the time emphasis. There are a whole slew of passages in the NT, which demonstrate a clear past action sense of the perfect tense.

There are a number of commentaries which agree with my assessment, btw (along with the translators of a whole slew of MV's), such as Jamieson Fausset and Brown, The New American Commentary, not to mention Wuest WS...

 

[Havensdad]

Why can't you believe the second?

That most of the people who have devoted their life to studying Greek, and translating Biblical text, would deliberately lie and lead people astray??

Oh, I don't know...:tonofbricks:

 

[webdog]

That most of the people who have devoted their life to studying Greek, and translating Biblical text, would deliberately lie and lead people astray??

Oh, I don't know...:tonofbricks:

So it is your claim JoJ does not fall into that camp (study of Greek and translation)?

It has nothing to do with "lying" and "leading people astray"...it has to do with infallibility.

 

[The Archangel]

So if I am understanding this, you are giving causative force to the Greek perfect passive verb, is that it? I was unaware that the perfect passive had causative force. Please find a grammarian who agrees with you.

Consider the following sentence: "The running man was shoved into the light pole and injured." We here have in the English a similar sentence grammatically to 1 John 5:1, complete with a gerund modifying the subject, and a past passive for the verb. By your reasoning, the reason the man was running is that he was shoved into a light pole. And the person who shoved him into a light pole was causing him to run. Do you see my point?

John,

Please don't misunderstand. I am aware of the perfect passive doesn't have a causative force. The context of the sentence, on the other hand, would seem to be suggesting just that.

Because of the two simple facts--there are ones believing (e.g. Christians) and God has done a work "borning" someone again. It would seem, grammatically there is a logical connection--which many commentators (like Schreiner with mad Greek skills) do point out. If you couple this with the other verses in the same book it would seem that John is indeed making a connective (if not causative) point.

The preposition εκ can have a causal or modal force, if understood figuratively--which is possible. Paul is known to use εκ in this manner and John does it in Revelation 16:10. Of course, it can also mean origin and John does frequently use it that way.

But, if John's point in writing 1 John is to combat gnosticism, it would seem that he is wanting to encourage his readers and uses this construction in more than one place (2:29; 4:7). It would seem that John is wanting to say "if you are doing these things--practicing righteousness (2:29), loving (4:7), and believing that Jesus is the Christ (5:1)--it is because you have been born of God and that is proof of your salvation, not some secret knowledge."

I see what you are saying with your sentence. But, I don't think your sentence is proper, because it is only grammatically similar, not logically, and the word order is different (which, I think, may only be nuance).

"The running man was shoved into the light pole and injured" "The running man" is fine. But, the running man is unqualified, whereas the original is qualified--"the ones believing" is qualified by "that Jesus is the Christ." Also, the past does not convey the same as the perfect.

This sentence, I think, would be more proper: The ones attending the game have been given tickets by Fred. Please tell me why this would or would not be the same.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[John of Japan]

I am stating that the Greek translators who translated this passage, either disagree with you as to the thrust of the passage, or purposefully translated this passage incorrectly.

I cannot believe the second, so I must believe the first. The thrust that you are trying to present, could have easily been represented in the text, in English. It is not.

You misunderstand me. I believe the versions you quoted are translated correctly. Here is what I said: "What the translators of the various English Bibles you mention did is this. They used the English noun "everyone" to represent the Greek substantival participle, since the Greek word for that is not a noun."

There is no way to translate the original substantive participle without using a noun of some kind. So you could say, "All (or every) of the ones believing" and the noun would be "ones." You could say, "Every believer" and the noun would be "believer." And the three you quoted all had a noun: "Everyone who believes," where the noun is "everyone."

Now, the original had a participle, right? If you want to carry over the participle into an English gerund, you could do this: "Everyone believing." In that case, the English participle would be used as an adjective, but you still have a noun." You cannot translate the original without a noun, and in any case the verb or verb clause modifies the noun in 1 John 5:1. My point stands.

In English, there is not doubt left in this passage that belief in the present is dependent upon having been born again in the past. If I state "everyone who is in this theater, has purchased a ticket" the ticket purchase is logically and temporally prior to the person's presence in the theater.

Your English sentence is not analogous to the passage and doesn't show cause. 1 John 5:1 has a passive in it. Please try again and I'd be happy to interact with you.

You can say whatever you like, but the translators would either have to be blundering buffoons in Greek, or lousy as all get out at English, to make such a simple, stupid translational error.

Please tone back the rhetoric. That kind of rhetoric is exactly why I post less and less on the BB. It's offensive. You seem to be making me puff my chest out and say, "All other translators are stupid."

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Please don't misunderstand. I am aware of the perfect passive doesn't have a causative force. The context of the sentence, on the other hand, would seem to be suggesting just that.

Because of the two simple facts--there are ones believing (e.g. Christians) and God has done a work "borning" someone again. It would seem, grammatically there is a logical connection--which many commentators (like Schreiner with mad Greek skills) do point out. If you couple this with the other verses in the same book it would seem that John is indeed making a connective (if not causative) point.

Okay, tell you what, quote Schreiner to me and I'll interact with him. What did he say about the passage?

The preposition εκ can have a causal or modal force, if understood figuratively--which is possible. Paul is known to use εκ in this manner and John does it in Revelation 16:10. Of course, it can also mean origin and John does frequently use it that way.

But, if John's point in writing 1 John is to combat gnosticism, it would seem that he is wanting to encourage his readers and uses this construction in more than one place (2:29; 4:7). It would seem that John is wanting to say "if you are doing these things--practicing righteousness (2:29), loving (4:7), and believing that Jesus is the Christ (5:1)--it is because you have been born of God and that is proof of your salvation, not some secret knowledge."

And the connection is? I've already said that regeneration is caused by God. That's not in doubt here. What I want to know is where you get that the ones believing must have believed after regeneration.

I see what you are saying with your sentence. But, I don't think your sentence is proper, because it is only grammatically similar, not logically, and the word order is different (which, I think, may only be nuance).
"The running man was shoved into the light pole and injured" "The running man" is fine. But, the running man is unqualified, whereas the original is qualified--"the ones believing" is qualified by "that Jesus is the Christ." Also, the past does not convey the same as the perfect.

So you are saying that grammar is illogical? I don't get it! Why would a grammatically identical sentence have a different logical outcome?

But anyway, the running man is qualified: "running" qualifies him just like "believing" qualifies in 1 John 5:1

This sentence, I think, would be more proper: The ones attending the game have been given tickets by Fred. Please tell me why this would or would not be the same.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Nope, sorry, I don't buy it. Your sentence doesn't show that people were caused by Fred to attend the game. It only accounts for people being made able to attend the game legally. What if someone with no transportation got a ticket from Fred? Or someone who had to be in court that day?

 

[John of Japan]

Not at all. The difference in this sentence, and the one in question, is that in 1 John 5:1 there is a direct correlative presented between believing and being born again. The "everyone" thrown to the front of the sentence, brings this emphasis out even more, especially in the Greek. Every single person who is believing, has been (completed action in the past) born again.

And please. I am well aware of the aspect/time issue, but their are quite a number of Greek scholars, who maintain the time emphasis. There are a whole slew of passages in the NT, which demonstrate a clear past action sense of the perfect tense.

I'm not really sure you are following me. Did you read my original post and the grammarians I quoted? We're not just dealing with a normal participle. This is a substantival participle. "In particular when a participle is substantival, its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force" (Wallace, p. 615).

 

[Aaron]

One's theological bent will influence one's translation, more so in amatuer translators than full Greek scholars. I don't believe John Piper knows less about Greek than J of J, but JoJ's signature tells me his theology won't allow him to give in. (Neither will Piper's.)

The Scriptures are replete with straightforward, explicit maxims about God's sovereignty in salvation. It isn't hinged on this one verse.

 

[John of Japan]

There are a number of commentaries which agree with my assessment, btw (along with the translators of a whole slew of MV's), such as Jamieson Fausset and Brown, The New American Commentary, not to mention Wuest WS...

Neither JFB nor Wuest say anything like the view of the OP concerning 1 John 5:1. I don't have access to The New American Commentary.

 

[John of Japan]

One's theological bent will influence one's translation, more so in amatuer translators than full Greek scholars. I don't believe John Piper knows less about Greek than J of J, but JoJ's signature tells me his theology won't allow him to give in. (Neither will Piper's.)

The Scriptures are replete with straightforward, explicit maxims about God's sovereignty in salvation. It isn't hinged on this one verse.

This thread is not about the order of salvation in general, but only in 1 John 5:1. And I'm not sure how you get my theology from my signature. Are you aware that Calvinist Spurgeon wrote a book, The Soul Winner? In the very first paragraph of the book he wrote, "Soul-winning is the chief business of the Christian minister; indeed, it should be the main pursuit of every true believer."

 

[Havensdad]

Neither JFB nor Wuest say anything like the view of the OP concerning 1 John 5:1. I don't have access to The New American Commentary.

"we become begotten sons of God by regeneration and adoption".1
Specifically excludes belief, since, belief is a result of regeneration.

"Translation. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, out from God has been born and as a result is His child"2


That person, John says, and he uses the perfect tense here, has been born of God and as a result is a child of God.3

" Thus faith is a sign of sonship."4

1. Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. 1 Jn 5:1

2. Wuest, Kenneth S.: Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1997, c1984, S. 1 Jn 5:1

3 Ibid.

4 Akin, Daniel L.: 1, 2, 3 John. electronic ed. Nashville : Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c2001 (Logos Library System; The New American Commentary 38), S. 189

 

[The Archangel]

One's theological bent will influence one's translation, more so in amatuer translators than full Greek scholars. I don't believe John Piper knows less about Greek than J of J, but JoJ's signature tells me his theology won't allow him to give in. (Neither will Piper's.)

The Scriptures are replete with straightforward, explicit maxims about God's sovereignty in salvation. It isn't hinged on this one verse.

Aaron,

I have enjoyed reading your posts. However, friend, I think this post may be a bit out of line. While it is obvious that John and I may never agree in our exegesis, I don't think his signature is a clue to his theology.

I'll admit I don't know much about John R. Rice, but I agree that we must be engaged in evangelism to win people to Christ. On the other hand, I know William Carey quite well and he was a Calvinist and dedicated his life to winning the lost.

So, we may not agree, his theology may be different than ours, but his belief in missions and his being a missionary is quite admirable.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[pinoybaptist]

I just took a second look at the title of the OP.
REGENERATION PRECEDES REDEMPTION.
I must say if this is what Piper is teaching, then I cannot agree.

 

[The Archangel]

Okay, tell you what, quote Schreiner to me and I'll interact with him. What did he say about the passage?

Maybe later.

And the connection is? I've already said that regeneration is caused by God. That's not in doubt here. What I want to know is where you get that the ones believing must have believed after regeneration.

Because the perfect passive shows what we know it shows and the participle shows a present fact. The juxtaposition of these things is shows a logical, if nothing else, causative, mostly because of the passive verb.

So you are saying that grammar is illogical? I don't get it! Why would a grammatically identical sentence have a different logical outcome?

It's not identical. The word order is different, "running man" is not qualified, etc. More below.

But anyway, the running man is qualified: "running" qualifies him just like "believing" qualifies in 1 John 5:1

Well, it actually doesn't qualify him, unless you want to revert "the ones believing" into something more than a subject. If we take "The man running" and "the ones believing" as a subject, that subject must be qualified. In the Greek, "the ones believing" is qualified by "that Jesus is the Christ." There is no such qualification in your sentence. Also, as I mentioned before, "was shoved," while passive, is not perfect tense. Further, the verb "was shoved" is an intensive action whereas "has been born" is not so intensive. The sentence also does not tell us who shoved the man, although that is much less important.

Nope, sorry, I don't buy it. Your sentence doesn't show that people were caused by Fred to attend the game. It only accounts for people being made able to attend the game legally. What if someone with no transportation got a ticket from Fred? Or someone who had to be in court that day?

I'll buy that it shows that people were made able to attend the game by Fred. And, I'd also be happy to say that John is saying that "the ones believing" were made able to believe by God. That fits reformed theology quite well.

In the original, what must be avoided is that believing has caused the regeneration, or we are born again because we believe. Being born again must come first, which this verse states quite plainly (even if you don't see a causative connection of any kind).

When we combine this with Jesus' words to Nicodemus in John 3: Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Of course the form of γεννάω is different (in John 3 it is aorist, passive, and subjunctive). But, the passive form is important because it is showing this is something Nicodemus can't do for himself. And, according to Jesus, the only way to see the Kingdom of Heaven (or later enter the Kingdom) is to be born again by God.

Being born again can never be a result of our believing. Because of Jesus' words and because it is the same author, John, it shows a more causative connection in the theology of John as a whole. John's first letter shows causative connections in similar passages:

1 John 2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices (present active participle) righteousness has been born of him (perfect passive verb).

1 John 3:9 No one born (perfect passive participle) of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (perfect passive verb).

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves (present active participle) has been born of God (perfect passive verb) and knows God.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I just took a second look at the title of the OP.
REGENERATION PRECEDES REDEMPTION.
I must say if this is what Piper is teaching, then I cannot agree.

Pinoybaptist,

I understand that you are a specific type of baptist (the type escapes me now) and you believe, basically, that Christians are born saved??? Is that right?

Anyway, I'd love to know why you can't agree, as I am unfamiliar with your theology and those who believe like you do.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. Your location says "Waldorf, MD." If that is the case, how much snow did you get? In the area of Western Maryland I'm in, we got, by some accounts, 38 inches.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Pinoybaptist,

I understand that you are a specific type of baptist (the type escapes me now) and you believe, basically, that Christians are born saved??? Is that right?

Anyway, I'd love to know why you can't agree, as I am unfamiliar with your theology and those who believe like you do.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I'm a member of a Primitive Baptist church, and an ordained elder in that church. Notice that I said "a" Primitive Baptist church, because there is no Primitive Baptist order that can be referred to as "the" Primitive Baptist church.

Yes, I believe Christians and all of God's elect are born saved (in the eternal sense) and redeemed, and I base that on the fact that Jesus Christ came to save His people and He did exactly that, else the cross would not have happened, the empty tomb will simply be a myth, his resurrection said to have been witnessed by hundreds, his 40 day walk on this earth after his resurrection, his ascension to heaven, ALL will be myths, and His imminent return simply wishful thinking.

Hebrews 9:12 says "having obtained eternal redemption for us".

That language effectively shuts off anymore redemption, and anymore to be redeemed. It is my belief that the word "us" includes all of God's elect from the foundation of the world, to the end of this plane we call time, else the statement would have been "having made eternal redemption possible for us".

He did what He came to do, and He did it well, and His blood redeemed ALL whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, and while someone may protest that there is a possibility that God can erase names in that book, I say that will never happen now or God will be like a US president who sent his boys and girls to war and then said, "ah, forgot about your blood. let's call it quits, alright ? Everybody, I'm sorry for the stupidity of America". (sorry, can't help that one.lol.)

In short, God will not demean the blood His only begotten and well beloved Son shed on that cross here in time, and in eternity past as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.

CAUTION, NOW !!

I did not say that God's elect are born REGENERATE !!
Redemption and regeneration are two different aspects of God's act on His child, just as regeneration and conversion are different.
EVERYBODY descended from Adam, and possessed of the same fallen nature, is born at enmity with God (Ephesians 2:13-16) until regenerated by the Spirit.
[/quote]

PS. Your location says "Waldorf, MD." If that is the case, how much snow did you get? In the area of Western Maryland I'm in, we got, by some accounts, 38 inches.

Some parts got about a foot, some, more.
here in Chantilly, where I work, we more likely had about more than a foot overnight.
Funny, you know.
We left Maryland for Buffalo NY a few years back because we were deadly scared of tornados, and a week after we got there a tornado touched down seven miles from where we lived.
Then it got too cold and too snowy for my wife so we moved back to Maryland.
Now we deal with just about as much snow as we did over there.

 

[pinoybaptist]

by the way, what I said I believed above about redemption and regeneration is not necessarily what every primitive baptist may believe, too.
so please, understand I am not speaking for all primitive baptists.