Regeneration does precede Redemption

[The Archangel]

Well, first of all, I don't believe that the substantive participle can only be taken as a simple subject. It's more complicated than that, and I don't really want to do the work to explain it all here. As for 1 John 5:1, yes I do believe that it should be taken as the subject of the sentence. In fact, didn't you say something similar early on in this thread? If o pisteuwn is not the subject of the sentence, than what is, other than that implicit in the verb form?

Good. We agree. "The ones believing" is the subject.

And now, this is precisely my point in the whole thread. Since there is no koine word for "believer" then how in the world would a first century koine speaker say it? Without any verb aspect involved? That would have been impossible. Ergo, when o pisteuwn appears it simply means "believer" or "believers," nothing fancy.

My point, however, is that it is a common practice of Greek to use a participle in this manner. "Believer" is not a special case. Therefore, something more is meant than "believers."

It is not as if the word was "Dogs" as in "one who dogs." After all that's just silly. But, our English "believer" carries the meaning of "one who believes." Therefore, whether we state it as "believers" or "one who believes" the meaning and intent is the same.

Are you familiar with transformational grammar? It analyzes grammar like this. You start with a basic sentence, "John throws the ball." You then transform it in various ways: John threw, will throw, can throw, doesn't throw, etc. If I were to do a transformational grammar of koine Greek, the transformation for "He is a believer" (using a noun) can only be the substantive participle. There is no other way to say it.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think, though, the Koine lends itself to this. The Koine is quite specific in and of itself. Certainly what you are suggesting above is important (quite important, I'd imagine) in translating forward, that is translating something already known into an new language. Your explanation, I think, shows your starting point is English and you are reading English norms back into the Greek rather than taking Greek norms as they are. By the way, this suggests to me that you are, probably, a phenomenal translator into Japanese. If I may, I would caution you, however, to let the Greek say what it says and how it says it--take it as it is.

It is very common in Greek to use participles exactly the way the Apostle John is using the participle here. Many other words fit this usage as well, so as I said before "believing" is not a special case.

Sorry, this all sounds too complicated to me. I'm a simple man. :smilewinkgrin: I just see pas as an adjective, modifying the subject of the sentence. I've never seen a grammar saying the adjective gives the subject of a sentence more verbal whatever. Except in Japanese, where the adjective can actually become a verb! But I digress.

Well, that's essentially what I see too--πας, the Adjective, modifying the participle. What I was suggesting is that the verbal aspect is retained in the participle. I was not suggesting that πας itself returned verbal function to the participle. I was suggesting, however, that the combination of πας with the participle shows a qualification of sorts--it is not only "the believing ones" it is "all the believing ones" and, therefore, these qualify each other.

I think it is quite freaky that Japanese can morph an adjective into a verb. No wonder it is considered quite difficult to learn.

If I grant this for the sake of argument, I still have to say, when did they begin believing? The present does not say. (You need an aorist or a perfect for that, maybe even a pluperfect.) They could very well have begun believing at the same time as regeneration, we don't know from the present tense. All we know is a present condition. So again, there is no order of salvation in 1 John 5:1.

I agree that there is no reference to "when" they began believing. I have no concern for "when" they began believing in our discussion, because, as you say, the present does not say.

I would be OK saying that it might be the case that they began believing at the same time as the regeneration.

The present condition, as you affirm, is that they are [currently] believing.

If we can agree that belief happened at the same time as regeneration (which you seem to grant) the rest of the sentence (the perfect passive verb) shows the source and aspect of the regeneration--God is the source; past time is the aspect. At the very least, I think you'd have to agree that believing before regeneration is ruled out by this passage.

So, I hope you can see why I am saying the contrast of the two facts--"there are ones presently believing" and "they have been born of God"--at the least suggests that God regenerates in the past (lasting into the present) and we [because of His work] presently are believing.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

That was 'why' I was asking IF there was something I was misunderstanding from your post -- and there was :laugh:

Acatully, there is someone who is arguing for the substantive participle being 'continuous', Me. However I am not saying this is the main aspect to be observed or its main thrust, but that the verbal aspect can not necessarily be divorced from the participles meaning either. The verbal aspect or tense elaborates on the noun's condition, 'believing ones/believers', which illistrates that at some point in the past these 'ones' believed, not giving us a 'when' this transpired. Nothing more than this is my point. And as such IMO, no chronology should be or can be devined from this text.

I see what you are saying. I would agree with your assessment of the substantive participle. But, the participle does not exist in a vacuum--it is part of a dependent clause. The other clause in the sentence clearly states that God has done a past work that extends into the present--"borning" again. The relationship between these two parts of speech--the participle and the verb--are not linguistically independent, they rely on each other in the sentence. Therefore, it can be seen that the present situation is based on the past action of another. That's what I'm saying.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[RAdam]

Good grief, this is ridiculous.

The text says whosoever believeth (present tense) that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (denoting a present state of being). We don't need to overexamine the text, it is written in plain english where even an elementary english student can understand it.

When I read that text I see one thing as being evidentiary of the other. Here, John says a present state of belief shows that one is in a present born again state. That's pretty simple. The difficulty is, can the evidence still be the cause? I do not believe so. When you see a person on the side of the road wearing prison clothes, you can come to the conclusion that the person is a prisoner. The person isn't made a prisoner by the clothes, merely seen to be a prisoner by the clothes. The clothes are evidentiary. To use a bible example, Paul says that the ordinance of circumcision Abraham received was a seal (a sign, or evidence) of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised. The circumcision didn't bring him righteousness of faith, it was evidentiary of it. I think belief is the same way.

The text from 1 John 5:1 does not say that the person has been born of God, it says the person is presently in the born agian state. But I believe it implies that regeneration has already occured.

 

[The Archangel]

Frankly, none of my grammars discuss the substantival participle as far as I'd like them to. But I found something A. T. Robertson said (amid the 1200 some pages he produced!) that is interesting: "One is not to confuse with this idiom the so-called 'substantival participle' of some grammars, which is a term used for the substantivizing of the verbal force of the participle, not the adjectival.... I confess that I see nothing to be gained by applying 'substantive' to the purely verbal aspects of the participle. Confusion of thought is the inevitable result" (p. 1109).

Remember that the participle was originally an adjective in classical Greek. Now in the case of o pisteuwn, this is adjectival in my book, making it similar to the substantival adjective, not the verbal version.

John,

Robertson is not arguing for diminishing the verbal force of the substantive participle. If you'll look at your page a bit closer, he is contrasting his view with that of Burton (and, presumably, others).

Burton is claiming some participles are "substantive" when clearly they are not. In doing so, Burton is wrongly applying the term "substantive" to certain participles that are clearly showing only a verbal aspect in that none of them are actually substantive in their own contexts.

So, Robertson is not saying that the substantive participle should be considered as lacking its verbal aspect. Rather, he is saying that Burton has wrongly labeled as "substantive" a participle that is actually "supplementary." On this, Robertson is absolutely right.

Also, though the participle did derive from the adjective, it is not still an adjective. By the Koine period, they were two distinct, though related, things.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Good grief, this is ridiculous.

The text says whosoever believeth (present tense) that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (denoting a present state of being). We don't need to overexamine the text, it is written in plain english where even an elementary english student can understand it.

Well, RAdam, it wasn't written in plain English to begin with. This is why we're looking a the Greek.

Also, "Is born of God" is not a proper translation. The KJV messes this up. The proper translation is "Has been born of God" denoting the perfect, passive, indicative of the verb " γεννάω, to give birth.

So, "has been born" is not showing a present state of being. Actually the participle is showing that. The verb--"has been born"--is showing that God has done something, in the past, to those who are now believers.

The text from 1 John 5:1 does not say that the person has been born of God, it says the person is presently in the born again state. But I believe it implies that regeneration has already occurred.

The present "state" is that of believing. Yes, I'd agree it implies that the regeneration has already occurred.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[RAdam]

The problem is the bible doesn't refer to the regenerate child of God in terms of a past even having taken place, but rather a present state of being. Paul, Romans 8:9 writes: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is not of his." In the context here, "in the Spirit" means regenerated, in a born agian condition. He doesn't say they've been in the Spirit, he says they currently are in the Spirit, and this is evidenced by the fact that the Spirit of God currently dwells in them.

John 3:3, Jesus says, "except a man be born of God, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Be is a state of being verb. Jesus is saying that one must be in the born again state to see the kingdom. Jesus didn't say unless you have been born of God, He said unless you be born of God.

The bible refers to the act of regeneration as an event, and so to a regenerate person the act is treated as a past tense event. But the actual regenerated person is said to be in a present born again or regenerate condition.

John is telling us in 1 John 5:1 about a regenerate person. He's not talking about the act of regeneration at all. He is saying that you have a believer here, and because the person believes it shows that the person is in a born again state.

 

[The Archangel]

The problem is the bible doesn't refer to the regenerate child of God in terms of a past even having taken place, but rather a present state of being. Paul, Romans 8:9 writes: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is not of his." In the context here, "in the Spirit" means regenerated, in a born agian condition. He doesn't say they've been in the Spirit, he says they currently are in the Spirit, and this is evidenced by the fact that the Spirit of God currently dwells in them.

John 3:3, Jesus says, "except a man be born of God, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Be is a state of being verb. Jesus is saying that one must be in the born again state to see the kingdom. Jesus didn't say unless you have been born of God, He said unless you be born of God.

The bible refers to the act of regeneration as an event, and so to a regenerate person the act is treated as a past tense event. But the actual regenerated person is said to be in a present born again or regenerate condition.

John is telling us in 1 John 5:1 about a regenerate person. He's not talking about the act of regeneration at all. He is saying that you have a believer here, and because the person believes it shows that the person is in a born again state.

The statement "He is saying that you have a believer here, and because the person believes it shows that the person is in a born again state" I agree with.

However, your thoughts about John 3:3 are not correct because the "being" verb is not present in the original. "Is" is supplied to make the translation into English.

Your thoughts on the Romans passage are fine, but they really don't apply to the John passages. Thank you, though, for sharing them.

Also, if I may, I would recommend a newer translation than the KJV. I grew up on the KJV and I love it, but it misses some things (only because English has progressed very far in the last 400 years).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Marcia]

Not so. There IS an indication. It shows that belief cannot precede regeneration, or else this is false.

John's entire point in these verses, is to show how one can know they have been born of God. He lists fruits of being born again, including righteousness, love, etc., Belief is included in those, with the same construction.

I still disagree and that is not what I think the text is saying in many versions. It's just saying that believers have been born again/born of God.
I am a believer; therefore, I am born of God.

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" John 7:38

If you are going to be picky about order, the above is saying you believe and then you have the Holy Spirit (which I think is indicated by the rivers of living water). It certainly does not say we have rivers of living water and then we believe.

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Rom. 10:9

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, Eph. 1:13

What is the order in the above?

Belief, then being saved/sealed with the Holy Spirit, which is regeneration. I really think they occur at about the same time, and that there is no verse that gives the clear order. What happens when someone is saved is a mystery that God does not divulge.

 

[Havensdad]

I still disagree and that is not what I think the text is saying in many versions. It's just saying that believers have been born again/born of God.
I am a believer; therefore, I am born of God.

Saying that you are a believer, and therefore you are born of God, in and of itself shows that belief is dependent upon being regenerated.

So, does righteousness also precede salvation? Love of God? Good works? All of these things have the same construction, in 1 John, and they are all fruit of being born again. Just like belief.

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" John 7:38

Again, this is speaking of the "abundant life"...not the new birth.

If you are going to be picky about order, the above is saying you believe and then you have the Holy Spirit (which I think is indicated by the rivers of living water). It certainly does not say we have rivers of living water and then we believe.

The rivers of living water, are those which are coming out: this, also, is AFTER regeneration.

Belief, then being saved/sealed with the Holy Spirit, which is regeneration. I really think they occur at about the same time, and that there is no verse that gives the clear order. What happens when someone is saved is a mystery that God does not divulge.

Romans 10:9 does not speak of salvation in terms of the present, but of the ultimate salvation in the future. Certainly you are not saying that a person who believes now, has to wait to be saved??

 

[Marcia]

Saying that you are a believer, and therefore you are born of God, in and of itself shows that belief is dependent upon being regenerated.

Nope.

So, does righteousness also precede salvation? Love of God? Good works? All of these things have the same construction, in 1 John, and they are all fruit of being born again. Just like belief.

I disagree that he is telling us that belief comes after regeneration. It is so clear to me that that is no the intent of this sentence that I'm amazed people say it is.

Again, this is speaking of the "abundant life"...not the new birth.

I'm not sure about that. The Holy Spirit is represented by water at times.

The rivers of living water, are those which are coming out: this, also, is AFTER regeneration.

Yes, the Holy Spirit, which is regeneration, is after belief.

Romans 10:9 does not speak of salvation in terms of the present, but of the ultimate salvation in the future. Certainly you are not saying that a person who believes now, has to wait to be saved??

It could be ultimate salvation in the future but I could also read it as "Believe and you will be saved." There is nothing strange about that but I don't think this verse is the strongest on that point. Just wanted to throw it in there.

We are not going to agree, Havensdad, but I enjoyed the discussion and it made me look up scriptures, think, and research. :wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

My point, however, is that it is a common practice of Greek to use a participle in this manner. "Believer" is not a special case. Therefore, something more is meant than "believers."

It is not as if the word was "Dogs" as in "one who dogs." After all that's just silly. But, our English "believer" carries the meaning of "one who believes." Therefore, whether we state it as "believers" or "one who believes" the meaning and intent is the same.

The only way I say that it is a special case is that there is no noun for "believer" so the koine uses a participle. There are many other Greek terms for which there is both a verb and a noun, of course, such as khrussw/ khruz . I look at "believe" as separate from those words in its semantic implications.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think, though, the Koine lends itself to this. The Koine is quite specific in and of itself. Certainly what you are suggesting above is important (quite important, I'd imagine) in translating forward, that is translating something already known into an new language. Your explanation, I think, shows your starting point is English and you are reading English norms back into the Greek rather than taking Greek norms as they are. By the way, this suggests to me that you are, probably, a phenomenal translator into Japanese. If I may, I would caution you, however, to let the Greek say what it says and how it says it--take it as it is.

Advocates of transformational grammar (including Eugene Nida) believe that it can be used with any language, including koine.

I highly doubt that I am reading English norms back into Greek. If anything, it would be Japanese norms I'd be reading back, and that certainly is not so. If you only knew this language. Couldn't be more different than Greek.

But hey, if I'm wrong here, I'm in exalted company. I already quoted Brooks and Winbury who said, “The participle, like an adjective, may be used in the place of a noun or other substantive. The participle itself then functions as a noun” (Syntax of NT Greek, p. 130).

Again, I checked my intermediate grammar by David Alan Black again, and learned that he doesn't use the term substantival participle, but instead classifies it as a kind of adjectival participle. (And of course Greek adjectives preceded by the article can be sustantives, as in "the evil one.") Here's what he says: The adjectival participle should normally be translated by a clause introduced by a relative pronoun but may sometimes be translated by a noun: oi pisteuonteV, those who believe or the believer" (It's Still Greek to Me, p. 122). And that's close to what I said in my first post.

I think it is quite freaky that Japanese can morph an adjective into a verb. No wonder it is considered quite difficult to learn.

And then back again!

I agree that there is no reference to "when" they began believing. I have no concern for "when" they began believing in our discussion, because, as you say, the present does not say.

I would be OK saying that it might be the case that they began believing at the same time as the regeneration.

The present condition, as you affirm, is that they are [currently] believing.

If we can agree that belief happened at the same time as regeneration (which you seem to grant) the rest of the sentence (the perfect passive verb) shows the source and aspect of the regeneration--God is the source; past time is the aspect. At the very least, I think you'd have to agree that believing before regeneration is ruled out by this passage.

So, I hope you can see why I am saying the contrast of the two facts--"there are ones presently believing" and "they have been born of God"--at the least suggests that God regenerates in the past (lasting into the present) and we [because of His work] presently are believing.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Well, I think we've come close together here. Personally I think it all happens at once, and there is no temporal or logical order. Salvation is so deep that when we try to describe it with our puny little minds we fail.

And with that I think we've argued pretty much the whole thing, so I'll quit the thread. Thanks again for a good and gracious discussion.

Sayonara for now. :wavey:

 

[RAdam]

The statement "He is saying that you have a believer here, and because the person believes it shows that the person is in a born again state" I agree with.

However, your thoughts about John 3:3 are not correct because the "being" verb is not present in the original. "Is" is supplied to make the translation into English.

Your thoughts on the Romans passage are fine, but they really don't apply to the John passages. Thank you, though, for sharing them.

Also, if I may, I would recommend a newer translation than the KJV. I grew up on the KJV and I love it, but it misses some things (only because English has progressed very far in the last 400 years).

Blessings,

The Archangel

English has not progressed, english has degenerated. Now, I'm not going to use this as an argument to use the KJV, nor am I going to argue in favor of the KJV here - that's not really what the discussion is about and I don't care what translation you use anyway. However, the idea that I should drop the KJV because english has progressed is laughable.

The translators got John 3:3 right. They did not supply "is" because that word is not even in the text. The text says that except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Be is a state of being verb here. In other words, except a man be in this born again state he cannot see the Kingdom. That, as well as the passage from Romans, shows how scripture describes a regenerate person - not as having been born again but in a born again state. That's exactly what 1 John 5:1 is doing. That's exactly what John 5:24 and 6:47 do as well.

 

[Havensdad]

Well, I think we've come close together here. Personally I think it all happens at once, and there is no temporal or logical order.
Sayonara for now. :wavey:

I think that it is important to note, that even JoJ was not arguing for belief preceding regeneration...

 

[Havensdad]

And now, this is precisely my point in the whole thread. Since there is no koine word for "believer" then how in the world would a first century koine speaker say it? Without any verb aspect involved? That would have been impossible. Ergo, when o pisteuwn appears it simply means "believer" or "believers," nothing fancy.

John, I was reading back through this thread, and I happened to see this. This is incorrect. The Greek has other ways to express the word "believer" (besides the obvious "mathates"...). In several cases, a substantival adjective is used (i.e. the one/person of belief). Had John chosen to omit the time aspect, and show the believer as a simple reality without temporal implication, a form could have been used such as in 2 Corinthians 6:15. However, he used a form that does suggest a "if this is true now/that was true then" form.

 

[Allan]

I think that it is important to note, that even JoJ was not arguing for belief preceding regeneration...

This shows that while you have been reading peoples posts you aren't understanding them to well.

John hasn't been saying, at all, that this verse proves faith preceding regenetion. His point and mine is from the stand point of the Greek this verse does not establish regeneration preceding belief. Him, Arch and myself all seem to finally be agreeing that the point of 'when' belief transpired is not stated but that it is or most likely is something that has happened in the past and the condition of believing is continuing into the now/present.

It is due to the Greek that this verse is not iron-clad proof of regeneration preceding faith and the very fact it is disputed by many Greek scholars establishes this very premise.

My argument from the beginning, just as John's, has been that this is not iron-clad in any sense proof of regeneration preceding faith.

 

[webdog]

I think that it is important to note, that even JoJ was not arguing for belief preceding regeneration...

No...he and the rest of us here were showing that regeneration before faith cannot be proven based on the verse in the OP. Nobody here tried to use the OP verse to prove faith prior to regeneration, in fact I know of no non-cal who holds to that view. Faith and regeneration are simultaneous.

edited...if I would have scrolled down just a tad, I would have seen Allan said basically the same thing

 

[Allan]

No...he and the rest of us here were showing that regeneration before faith cannot be proven based on the verse in the OP. Nobody here tried to use the OP verse to prove faith prior to regeneration, in fact I know of no non-cal who holds to that view. Faith and regeneration are simultaneous.

edited...if I would have scrolled down just a tad, I would have seen Allan said basically the same thing

Well, Actually - I do :thumbs: -editted in - and I know a great many others.

I have a couple of threads I posted a while back on the very subject of faith preceding regeneration however I do agree that they are almost simultaneous in that almost no time passes between them. Although I am not opposed to the idea either that they can be simultaneous while leaving the intricacies to God.

 

[webdog]

Well, Actually - I do :thumbs:

I have a couple of threads I posted a while back on the very subject of faith preceding regeneration however I do agree that they are almost simultaneous in that almost no time passes between them. Although I am not opposed to the idea either that they can be simultaneous either and leaving the intricacies to God.

Well, I now know at least one :laugh:

I think the moment one has faith they have instantaneously passed from death to life. Any other view could have someone putting faith in Christ while dying before being regenerated. Both this view and the regeneration prior to faith view have flaws.

 

[Allan]

Well, I now know at least one :laugh:

I think the moment one has faith they have instantaneously passed from death to life. Any other view could have someone putting faith in Christ while dying before being regenerated. Both this view and the regeneration prior to faith view have flaws.

FWIW - most of the Non-Cals on the BB hold to faith preceding regeneration. (as regeneration is another term regarding the things pertaining to salvation)

I agree that the moment they place faith in Christ they are regenerated thus almost no time passes. I know of no one who believes a person can believe and it take any amount of real time before they are regenerate.

My basis for my view is not only found in many verses but more specifically in that all the aspects of regeneration are said to come into being 'by faith'. (Justificaiton, sanctificaiton, righteousness, In Christ, indwelt by Holy Spirit) - We are a new creation.. old things have passed away.. all things have become new.
The term salvation is a very general and all encompassing term about what happens to a believer. Regeration, like salvation, is a term that encompasses specific aspects that have happened. Anyway, these things can be found in my old Threads.

1. Regeneration: Is it a prelude to OR the Act of Salvation ~Born Again~ - this one transitioned somewhat though from regeneration to effectual calling and I haven't gotten back to it to finish it and bring it back to the OP.
2. Ordo Salutis 2 - The Regeneration

 

[webdog]

I started another thread as not to derail this one (with a poll)

I will say that "by faith" should be viewed as "through faith" as well, which is not to show it being linear but the means through which one is regenerated.