Regeneration does precede Redemption

[The Archangel]

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.

Allan,

I agree that the "when" is not in view in the participle. However, I still maintain that the past perfect verb in connection with the present participle shows that God's work of regeneration happens before our belief. In other words, our belief is a result of (or a response to) God's regenerating work.

And, there are many Greek scholars on my side too. And to them (and me too) it is iron-clad.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

And, there are many Greek scholars on my side too. And to them (and me too) it is iron-clad.

That is without doubt true, but I would bet a great many of these Greek scholars are Calvinists, and are interpreting from a bias.

And saying something is iron-clad in your mind means little. Muslims are as iron-clad about their religion as you can probably get, but they are in error.

 

[The Archangel]

That is without doubt true, but I would bet a great many of these Greek scholars are Calvinists, and are interpreting from a bias.

As if your Arminian scholars don't?

That's funny...and sad!

The Archangel

 

[Havensdad]

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.

This post was not directed at you, nor JoJ. It was directed at Marcia and Winman, who both said that faith precedes regeneration in the course of this thread.

 

[Havensdad]

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.

This means you believe faith precedes regeneration. This is the opposite of what 1 John says, which clearly lists the results of being born again, in the same construction: righteousness, love of the brothers, avoidance of sin, and yes, belief.

 

[Winman]

As if your Arminian scholars don't?

That's funny...and sad!

The Archangel

Till I came here to this forum I had never read a Armianian author, I read the scriptures. Sure, I heard lots of good preaching, but if it didn't match up to what the scriptures said, I would walk out.

No, I want to know the truth come what may, not satisfy what I "want" the scriptures to say. You will often see I am quite different from other non-Cals here on a number of beliefs.

Sad? Don't worry about me, you should be worried about yourself. :thumbs:

 

[Marcia]

This post was not directed at you, nor JoJ. It was directed at Marcia and Winman, who both said that faith precedes regeneration in the course of this thread.

Just to clarify, as I don't want to enter this discussion again, if I said that faith precedes regeneration it was to show that if one wants to see an order, one can see faith and then regeneration in some verses - I was just arguing the other way.

But I said this on this thread below, and have said it many times before on the BB:

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.

If I have to go with one view, I would say they are simultaneous and/or it's a mystery we cannot fathom/dissect.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I'm glad to see that you have finally read my posts and are now interacting for the first time with what I actually wrote rather than conclusions you have jumped to.

Thank you for the correction. I had forgotten about pistos. However, this does not change my view that a Greek substantive participle should be treated just like a noun, nor does it change the view of the Greek grammarians I have quoted (far better at the language than I am). You may ignore them if you wish, though.

 

[Havensdad]

I'm glad to see that you have finally read my posts and are now interacting for the first time with what I actually wrote rather than conclusions you have jumped to.

Thank you for the correction. I had forgotten about pistos. However, this does not change my view that a Greek substantive participle should be treated just like a noun, nor does it change the view of the Greek grammarians I have quoted (far better at the language than I am). You may ignore them if you wish, though.

At least one of the grammarians you mentioned (Wallace) stated explicitly that a substantival participle taking the place of a noun, does not remove its verbal qualities...which would include tense.

 

[The Archangel]

John of Japan, Allan, et al.

I just read a footnote in Wallace in which he references 1 John 5:1. He states this:

The aspectual force of the present ὁ πιστεύων seems to be in contrast with ὁ πιστεύσας . The aorist is used only eight times (plus two in the longer ending of Mark). The aorist is sometimes used to describe believers as such and thus has a generic force (cf. for the clearest example the v.l. at Mark 16:16; cf. also 2 Thess 1:10; Heb 4:3; perhaps John 7:39; also, negatively, of those who did not [ μή ] believe: 2 Thess 2:12; Jude 5). The present occurs six times as often (43 times), most often in soteriological contexts (cf. John 1:12; 3:15, 16, 18; 3:36; 6:35, 47, 64; 7:38; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 2:44; 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22 [bis]; Gal 3:22; Eph 1:19; 1 Thess 1:7; 2:10, 13; 1 Pet 2:6, 7; 1 John 5:1, 5, 10, 13). Thus, it seems that since the aorist participle was a live option to describe a "believer," it is unlikely that when the present was used, it was aspectually flat. The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation. Along these lines, it seems significant that the promise of salvation is almost always given to ὁ πιστεύων (cf. several of the above-cited texts), almost never to ὁ πιστεύσας (apart from Mark 16:16, John 7:39 and Heb 4:3 come the closest [the present tense of πιστεύω never occurs in Hebrews]).

This is from footnote 22 in his Grammar's chapter on the participle.

So, apparently, according to Wallace, it is proper to see this as a continuing state.

How 'bout that? That might change the argument. A continual state of belief, perhaps, resulting from God's past, perfect working.

What do you all think?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

John of Japan, Allan, et al.

I just read a footnote in Wallace in which he references 1 John 5:1. He states this:



This is from footnote 22 in his Grammar's chapter on the participle.

So, apparently, according to Wallace, it is proper to see this as a continuing state.

How 'bout that? That might change the argument. A continual state of belief, perhaps, resulting from God's past, perfect working.

What do you all think?

Blessings,

The Archangel

Sounds like something I have been saying as it seems the emphasis is on the contination of the condition of the noun being the result of being Born. :thumbs:

 

[The Archangel]

Sounds like something I have been saying as it seems the emphasis is on the continuation of the condition of the noun being the result of being Born. :thumbs:

Granted. But won't that show that being born again is first and the continually believing is a result of that?

Why or Why not?

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. I shoveled WAY too much snow today. I'm officially out of places to throw the stuff. I hear the Olympics are looking for snow. If they come to my house, they can have all they want--for free--as long as they shovel it and take it away.

 

[Allan]

Granted. But won't that show that being born again is first and the continually believing is a result of that?

Why or Why not?

Blessings,

The Archangel

Acatully, I was just about to get on here and change my comment somewhat to see why -you- think this might change the argument.

I don't think it does show that regeneration was before faith.
It is only stating a fact about why the noun is in a present state of 'continuing' belief.
As I made mention previously that 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. Since both the intial point of faith and regeneration are assumedly understood as past actions what is seemingly being stressed is the reason for current condition of the noun, and it is that condition which the perfect is speaking to. Thus I don't see the initial point of faith is in view here as the result of regeneration but the continuing state (preservation) of the action of being born.

And as such, IMO, no chronology from either side should be or can be devined from this text.

There are other passages in scripture portray faith preceding regeneration, seen as faith preceding them becoming children of the light, of lght, of life, ect..

PS. I shoveled WAY too much snow today. I'm officially out of places to throw the stuff. I hear the Olympics are looking for snow. If they come to my house, they can have all they want--for free--as long as they shovel it and take it away.

Ours has finally stopped and like you I have no where left to throw it except my neighbors yards

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan, Allan, et al.

I just read a footnote in Wallace in which he references 1 John 5:1. He states this:



This is from footnote 22 in his Grammar's chapter on the participle.

So, apparently, according to Wallace, it is proper to see this as a continuing state.

How 'bout that? That might change the argument. A continual state of belief, perhaps, resulting from God's past, perfect working.

What do you all think?

Blessings,

The Archangel

A present continuative still wouldn't tell when the belief started.

I see your Wallace and I raise you with a David Alan Black: "The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb." (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113). So a normal present participle shows action at the same time as the main verb when it's a perfect.

 

[The Archangel]

A present continuative still wouldn't tell when the belief started.

I see your Wallace and I raise you with a David Alan Black: "The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb." (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113). So a normal present participle shows action at the same time as the main verb when it's a perfect.

I will gladly affirm that it is showing a present state--there are believers and they are presently continuing in a state of belief.

However, what you post about the participle--in reading Wallace--seem to be said only of the adverbial participle, not the adjectival participle.

So, I don't think it can be said that this participle's action is "concurrent" with the main verb--only because it is not an adverbial participle.

Why or why not?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Actually, I was just about to get on here and change my comment somewhat to see why -you- think this might change the argument.

Actually, I posted the question as a "loaded question" to gain a detailed response. I don't think it changes my argument.

I don't think it does show that regeneration was before faith.
It is only stating a fact about why the noun is in a present state of 'continuing' belief.

The participle in and of itself doesn't show that regeneration precedes faith. The participle--in context with the main verb--on the other hand does show this.

As I made mention previously that 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. Since both the intial point of faith and regeneration are assumedly understood as past actions what is seemingly being stressed is the reason for current condition of the noun, and it is that condition which the perfect is speaking to. Thus I don't see the initial point of faith is in view here as the result of regeneration but the continuing state (preservation) of the action of being born.

And as such, IMO, no chronology from either side should be or can be devined from this text. [/QUOTE]

But, grammatically, God's action is in the past and the action of those believing is in the present--a clear connection is present.

I might agree with you if the main verb was aorist, but it isn't--it's perfect.

The connection of God's working in the past with lasting effects into the present and a present state of continuing belief cannot be missed.

There are other passages in scripture portray faith preceding regeneration, seen as faith preceding them becoming children of the light, of light, of life, etc..

I'm curious which passages you'd point to.

Ours has finally stopped and like you I have no where left to throw it except my neighbors yards

I don't think my neighbors have any room either! I'm about 6' tall and one of the snow piles is taller than me!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

It appears to me that if one of you Greek scholars would do an unbiased exegesis [I suppose that is redundant.] of Ephesians 2:1-8 you could show that regeneration precedes faith. That is what the English states but then what did those translators know?

When I speak of regeneration I am not using it in the broad sense to include all aspects of Salvation but only the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ discusses with Nicodemus.

 

[David Michael Harris]

How do we become Christians? It's by believing what God teaches us when He draws us to Christ. Grace yes, but we must believe. This leads to the irresistible thing.

 

[webdog]

It appears to me that if one of you Greek scholars would do an unbiased exegesis [I suppose that is redundant.] of Ephesians 2:1-8 you could show that regeneration precedes faith. That is what the English states but then what did those translators know?

When I speak of regeneration I am not using it in the broad sense to include all aspects of Salvation but only the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ discusses with Nicodemus.

On the contrary. A plain reading of that text clearly shows the action occurring in Christ, not prior to or after.

 

[OldRegular]

On the contrary. A plain reading of that text clearly shows the action occurring in Christ, not prior to or after.

I teach remedial grammar in case you are interested. Of course there would be a long commute!:laugh::laugh::laugh::smilewinkgrin: