Actually, I posted the question as a "loaded question" to gain a detailed response. I don't think it changes my argument.
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.
And as such, IMO, no chronology from either side should be or can be devined from this text.
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.
I'm curious which passages you'd point to.
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
It's easily explainable, as most commentators note, due to the fact that this section describes the love
within the family of God.
Those unbelievers who broke away from the body of believers also claimed to be born of God, yet they do not love the members of God's family. The author, however, argues that those believing in the Christ love their siblings because they love their father. Everyone who believes, therefore, relates to their siblings with love because they have been born into this family. This is "fictive family" language, and a common way of describing relationships in the ancient world (read anything by David Desilva).
Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ ---> has been born from God.
And everyone loving the [One] having fathered---> is loving the [one] having been born from him.
This is how those who are believing----> relate to those that are part of the family of God. If your brother is one who is believing, he his born of God, and is therefore has been made member of your same family - a brother!- whom you should love because you have the same father.
Why doesn't the author talk about the metaphysics of conversion here (which would only be logical, given your interpretation)? Because it isn't the topic. Rather, this is a continuation of the immediately preceding exhortation: "...the [one] loving God should be loving his brother also." 5:1 explains why his is so: You both have been born into the same family, as is the case with everyone who is believing.