View on regeneration

[Winman]

This is not even close.

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

And...what you so conveniently left out.

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here's the parsings:

v. 12

-Did receive: 2nd Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist shows a simple "snapshot" of past time.

-Who believed: Participle, present, active. The participle is not showing a verbal action here. This participle is merely stating there are presently believers and it is qualifying, as a parenthetical statement, "to become children of God."

-He gave: Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist shows a simple "snapshot" of past time.

-To become: Infinitive, 2nd aorist. Again, the aorist is showing a "snapshot" of past time. The infinitive shows the importance of the kind of action, not the time. The kind of action here is God's adopting of us.
​

v. 13

-Were born: Aorist, passive, indicative. Again, the aorist is showing a "snapshot" of past time. The "passive" shows that it is God who is doing the "borning," not us.
​

So, here is a fully inflected translation: 12 But to all who did receive him [at some time in the past], who believed [rather, who are presently believing--showing belief is continual and persevering, not a one-time decision] in his name, he gave [at some time in the past] the right to become [e.g. God's adopting of us at sometime in the past] children of God, 13 who were born [by God's actions, not man's], not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

There is no justification for taking "to believe" as a "middle." That's just funny, actually. Grammatically, it is impossible to take the infinitive as such.

Also, all the aorist verbs in v. 12 are not showing "cause" or "progression." And, in Greek, "to become" precedes, not follows, the participle "who believed."

So your understanding of this verse is not correct and cannot be.

Further, you miss the main verb of v. 13 which is showing that the regenerating action is of God--the passive showing that the subject cannot act upon himself or herself--at sometime in the past.

So, the only verb in v. 12-13 that shows any type of causative connection is in v. 13 and it is God's action, not ours.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Pure baloney. The verb that shows causative connection is "received" in verse 12. Even a child could understand this verse.

Verse 13 is addressing "gave he power to become the sons of God". It is God only that has the power to regenerate a man. No non-Cal believes he gave himself spiritual life. But God has said if we believe he will give us life.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Here Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as living water (John 7:38-39). Notice Jesus said she needed to ask for this water. He did not pry open her mouth and forcibly pour it down her throat.

Jesus offers this living water to everyone, but we have the duty of drinking this water for it to be effectual.

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

You could be dying of thirst and I could give you a glass of water. But that glass of water will not do you any good unless you personally drink it. It is the same with Jesus, he offers the living water, the Holy Spirit. But we must take of this water ourselves.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The water is there, the water is free, all that needs be done is a man be willing and "take" of it.

 

[The Archangel]

Pure baloney. The verb that shows causative connection is "received" in verse 12. Even a child could understand this verse.

Nope. Here's where a little knowledge of Greek on your part would be helpful to you. The aorist is not showing cause, by definition it cannot--it is a simple snapshot of past time.

Maybe you shouldn't play with things you don't understand?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready at the quarry; and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. 1 Ki 67


Life precedes faith.

 

[AresMan]

I wrongly assumed most calvinists hold to regeneration prior to faith, and non-cal's held to faith and regeneration being simultaneous. I now see there are non-cal's who claim faith precedes regeneration, which has many of the same problems, IMO, of the regeneration preceding faith view.

I believe that both are chronologically simultaneous. However, they are not mutually exclusive. Regeneration is like a trigger and faith is like a projectile. They happen at the same time, but one is the necessary cause of the other.

 

[AresMan]

Pure baloney.

In other words: "I can't refute it or even understand it, but because it goes against the grain of my traditions and my personal, human, finite understanding of 'fairness,' then I simply call it 'baloney' just because."

 

[Robert Snow]

This is not even close.

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

And...what you so conveniently left out.

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here's the parsings:

v. 12

-Did receive: 2nd Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist shows a simple "snapshot" of past time.

-Who believed: Participle, present, active. The participle is not showing a verbal action here. This participle is merely stating there are presently believers and it is qualifying, as a parenthetical statement, "to become children of God."

-He gave: Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist shows a simple "snapshot" of past time.

-To become: Infinitive, 2nd aorist. Again, the aorist is showing a "snapshot" of past time. The infinitive shows the importance of the kind of action, not the time. The kind of action here is God's adopting of us.
​

v. 13

-Were born: Aorist, passive, indicative. Again, the aorist is showing a "snapshot" of past time. The "passive" shows that it is God who is doing the "borning," not us.
​

So, here is a fully inflected translation: 12 But to all who did receive him [at some time in the past], who believed [rather, who are presently believing--showing belief is continual and persevering, not a one-time decision] in his name, he gave [at some time in the past] the right to become [e.g. God's adopting of us at sometime in the past] children of God, 13 who were born [by God's actions, not man's], not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

There is no justification for taking "to believe" as a "middle." That's just funny, actually. Grammatically, it is impossible to take the infinitive as such.

Also, all the aorist verbs in v. 12 are not showing "cause" or "progression." And, in Greek, "to become" precedes, not follows, the participle "who believed."

So your understanding of this verse is not correct and cannot be.

Further, you miss the main verb of v. 13 which is showing that the regenerating action is of God--the passive showing that the subject cannot act upon himself or herself--at sometime in the past.

So, the only verb in v. 12-13 that shows any type of causative connection is in v. 13 and it is God's action, not ours.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Man are you hung up on that Greek!

Maybe if you read what the English bibles said, you would learn more than you think! You see, I believe the translators of the bible in English know a lot more about the Greek language than you do. Therefore, I trust the word God gave us over any Greek grammar you claim to know so well.

 

[The Archangel]

Man are you hung up on that Greek!

Maybe if you read what the English bibles said, you would learn more than you think! You see, I believe the translators of the bible in English know a lot more about the Greek language than you do. Therefore, I trust the word God gave us over any Greek grammar you claim to know so well.

Again, we see "Mr. Ugly" not addressing the topic but attacking the person.

I am hung up on Greek because, after all, it is the original.

Certainly the translators know/knew more about Greek thank I do--and more than you too.

A translation is not necessarily the word of God and no translation can accurately capture all the nuance of the original language. Now, before you ask--translations are more than adequate. However, what Winman is trying to do is base an interpretation on something that clearly goes against the Greek grammar--something that is, by definition, a wrong interpretation.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

Again, we see "Mr. Ugly" not addressing the topic but attacking the person.

I am hung up on Greek because, after all, it is the original.

Certainly the translators know/knew more about Greek thank I do--and more than you too.

A translation is not necessarily the word of God and no translation can accurately capture all the nuance of the original language. Now, before you ask--translations are more than adequate. However, what Winman is trying to do is base an interpretation on something that clearly goes against the Greek grammar--something that is, by definition, a wrong interpretation.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Typical!

You can believe this if you desire, I don't buy it.

You actually believe that even though God knew that in the history of the world where there would be myriads of more believers who speak English than Greek, and where the center of biblical evangelism would be both England and the United States, yet He did not give us the Word of God in English? You think God would take the country that in the past 200 years has done more to spread the Gospel than any other country in history and not give us the Word of God?

Keep on studying your Greek and believe ignorant doctrines like Calvinism. I will take the plane unadulterated gospel God has blessed for scores of years!

 

[Winman]

Typical!

You can believe this if you desire, I don't buy it.

You actually believe that even though God knew that in the history of the world where there would be myriads of more believers who speak English than Greek, and where the center of biblical evangelism would be both England and the United States, yet He did not give us the Word of God in English? You think God would take the country that in the past 200 years has done more to spread the Gospel than any other country in history and not give us the Word of God?

Keep on studying your Greek and believe ignorant doctrines like Calvinism. I will take the plane unadulterated gospel God has blessed for scores of years!

I also believe as you, that God saw or planned that the English would colonize the world, and then America, and through them spread the gospel worldwide. It used to be said that the sun never sets on the English empire, and it was true.

All these fellows who know Greek seem to do is try to convince us the scriptures say the opposite of what they easily say. They are not going to listen to regular folks like us, they are way too smart and elite. We are dummies in their eyes.

 

[OldRegular]

I wrongly assumed most calvinists hold to regeneration prior to faith, and non-cal's held to faith and regeneration being simultaneous. I now see there are non-cal's who claim faith precedes regeneration, which has many of the same problems, IMO, of the regeneration preceding faith view.

Hard to make you happy webdog!:tear::tear::tear::BangHead:

 

[webdog]

Hard to make you happy webdog!:tear::tear::tear::BangHead:

I don't follow...

 

[Robert Snow]

I don't follow...

Calvinistic logic I guess! :laugh:

 

[The Archangel]

Typical!

You can believe this if you desire, I don't buy it.

You actually believe that even though God knew that in the history of the world where there would be myriads of more believers who speak English than Greek, and where the center of biblical evangelism would be both England and the United States, yet He did not give us the Word of God in English? You think God would take the country that in the past 200 years has done more to spread the Gospel than any other country in history and not give us the Word of God?

Keep on studying your Greek and believe ignorant doctrines like Calvinism. I will take the plane unadulterated gospel God has blessed for scores of years!

I guess that would make you KJV only then? And I though your ugliness was your biggest problem.

The Archangel

 

[Havensdad]

Typical!

You can believe this if you desire, I don't buy it.

You actually believe that even though God knew that in the history of the world where there would be myriads of more believers who speak English than Greek, and where the center of biblical evangelism would be both England and the United States, yet He did not give us the Word of God in English? You think God would take the country that in the past 200 years has done more to spread the Gospel than any other country in history and not give us the Word of God?

Keep on studying your Greek and believe ignorant doctrines like Calvinism. I will take the plane unadulterated gospel God has blessed for scores of years!

Remember that when the King James and Geneva Bibles were most prevalent (16th and 17th century), is when Calvinism reigned supreme among protestants.

Only with the rise of the Modern Versions, did Arminian theology such as yours flip the table. It could well be argued that reading the Geneva or KJV as your primary Bible, actually leads to Calvinism.

 

[Havensdad]

I would also like to point out, that someone said in another thread, that "by far" more people on this forum believed faith preceded regeneration. This poll shows the opposite (thus far).

 

[TCGreek]

This is not even close.

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

And...what you so conveniently left out.

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here's the parsings:

v. 12

-Did receive: 2nd Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist shows a simple "snapshot" of past time.

-Who believed: Participle, present, active. The participle is not showing a verbal action here. This participle is merely stating there are presently believers and it is qualifying, as a parenthetical statement, "to become children of God."

-He gave: Aorist, active, indicative. The aorist shows a simple "snapshot" of past time.

-To become: Infinitive, 2nd aorist. Again, the aorist is showing a "snapshot" of past time. The infinitive shows the importance of the kind of action, not the time. The kind of action here is God's adopting of us.
​

v. 13

-Were born: Aorist, passive, indicative. Again, the aorist is showing a "snapshot" of past time. The "passive" shows that it is God who is doing the "borning," not us.
​

So, here is a fully inflected translation: 12 But to all who did receive him [at some time in the past], who believed [rather, who are presently believing--showing belief is continual and persevering, not a one-time decision] in his name, he gave [at some time in the past] the right to become [e.g. God's adopting of us at sometime in the past] children of God, 13 who were born [by God's actions, not man's], not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

There is no justification for taking "to believe" as a "middle." That's just funny, actually. Grammatically, it is impossible to take the infinitive as such.

Also, all the aorist verbs in v. 12 are not showing "cause" or "progression." And, in Greek, "to become" precedes, not follows, the participle "who believed."

So your understanding of this verse is not correct and cannot be.

Further, you miss the main verb of v. 13 which is showing that the regenerating action is of God--the passive showing that the subject cannot act upon himself or herself--at sometime in the past.

So, the only verb in v. 12-13 that shows any type of causative connection is in v. 13 and it is God's action, not ours.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Archangel, my friend

As a fellow Calvinist, I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

I don't think these verses warrant regeneration preceding faith. In fact, these verses seem to point to faith preceding regeneration.

Verse 12: 1. Receive Jesus; 2. Become children of God.

Verse 13 is simply descriptive of what it means to become children of God.

It's not a proof text for regeneration preceding faith.

 

[Allan]

Since we can't vote twice and mine is the the wrong section :laugh:
Tally thus far is
8 for regeneration preceding faith
5 for faith preceding regeneration
and..
6 for both being simultaneous.

 

[Robert Snow]

I guess that would make you KJV only then? And I though your ugliness was your biggest problem.

The Archangel

You just can't make a correct assumption, can you? I never said anything about being KJVO. I do love the KJV; it is probably the best translation, at least it lasted a long time as the primary bible used in the United States. And, for over 300 years if you asked 99 percent of the people to give you a bible, the KJV is what you would have been given. The issue isn't the KJV though, it is your obsession with the Greek texts. Let me ask you if you think there is a reliable English bible a person can depend on to convey God's Word without having to be a Greek scholar?

As far as ugliness is concerned, you seem to give about as good as you get, so please spare me the dramatics.

Again I see you as continually presenting yourself as a Greek scholar in order to disprove the fact that God offers His salvation to anyone who is willing to turn to Him in faith.

 

[Robert Snow]

Remember that when the King James and Geneva Bibles were most prevalent (16th and 17th century), is when Calvinism reigned supreme among protestants.

Only with the rise of the Modern Versions, did Arminian theology such as yours flip the table. It could well be argued that reading the Geneva or KJV as your primary Bible, actually leads to Calvinism.

Not true. The reason the KJV was the predominant bible during this time is because it was the predominant bible period. There have always been bible-believing churches that saw the error of Calvinism and taught against this false doctrine.

 

[Allan]

Remember that when the King James and Geneva Bibles were most prevalent (16th and 17th century), is when Calvinism reigned supreme among protestants.

Though it was the largest view at the time and that primarily due to threats, running other views out, or potentially death if one held a view contrary (of which I note later in this post), it was also not the ONLY view at the time.

Only with the rise of the Modern Versions, did Arminian theology such as yours flip the table. It could well be argued that reading the Geneva or KJV as your primary Bible, actually leads to Calvinism.

Again, wrong. You make up some the of wildest claims in what appears to be a revising of church history. The growth of Aminianism was still during the time when the KJV was still the primary bible in the hands of the comman man. I would encourage you to study a little more church history on this.
From Spurgeon on Arminianism from "Hall of Church History - The Arminians"

The Remonstrants were expelled from the Reformed Church, and Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine. Far from dealing a crushing blow to the movement, however, the Synod of Dordt merely became the starting point for the underground spread of the doctrine. Today Arminianism is surely the majority view in Protestant churches.

Let us not forget the John Wesley was preaching in the early 1700's and by this time Arminianism was already firmly restablished and not simply trying to grow.

Also here from Wiki - "the history of Calvinist-Arminian debate" as to why Calvinism held promiance and then Arminianism began to grow:

Quinquarticular Controversy refers to the theological Calvinist-Arminian controversy that was addressed by Dutch Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort in 1618–1619. Quinquarticular (which means, "having to do with five points") refers to points of contention raised by the Arminian party in its publication of five articles of Remonstrance in 1610 and rejected by the Synod in the Canons of Dort, the essence of which is commonly referred to as the Five Points of Calvinism.
....
This Synod of Dort included Calvinist representatives from Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and France, though Arminians were denied acceptance. Three Arminian delegates from Utrecht managed to gain seats, but were soon forcibly ejected and replaced with Calvinist alternates.[11] The synod ultimately ruled that Arminius' teachings were heretical, reaffirming the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism as its orthodox statements of doctrine. One of the results of the synod was the formation of the Five points of Calvinism in direct response to the five articles of Remonstrance.


Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange (1567-1625), political leader of the Calvinists.Robert Picirilli summarized the aftermath of the Synod of Dort as follows:

“ "Punishment for the Remonstrants, now officially condemned as heretics and therefore under severe judgement of both church and state, was severe. All Arminian pastors — some 200 of them — were deprived of office; any who would not agree to be silent were banished from the country. Spies were paid to hunt down those suspected of returning to their homeland. Some were imprisoned, among them Grotius; but he escaped and fled the country. Five days after the synod was over, Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded. ”

[12]

After Maurice died, the Remonstrants were accorded toleration by the state and granted the freedom to follow their religion in peace, to build churches and schools. The Remonstrant Theological Seminary was instituted in Amsterdam and Simon Episcopius and Hugo Grotius were among its first professors. Today both the seminary and the church have shifted dramatically from their founders' theology.[13]



The Controversy marked the transformation of what was a reasonably loose Arminian movement into a separate, initially persecuted church organization in the Netherlands, and set the stage for the continuation of the predestination-free will controversy to this day in Protestant ranks.

The controversy is seen quite differently by the diverse groups involved in or affected by it: for Arminians it was the start of full persecution after the imposition of an edict with no real debate, for Calvinists it was the settling in clear points of doctrine that were started by John Calvin himself, clarified by his successor Theodore Beza but not yet fully codified, and for Lutherans the ending of any pos

The shift in views came after the relaxing of the Laws in favor of toleration. It was Not, primarily or teritiary, from the rise of 'modern versions' but is historically noted that the growth of Arminianism was on the rise while the KJV was the primary (if not the only) bible of the comman man. Thus one can not deduce that the KJV leads one to a Calvinistic view.There are SO many other sources I can pull from but at present I am at work these are the ones currently at my finger tips.

Editted in - Unlike some, I am not at odds with the Reformed/Calvinist doctrines and the above should not be seen as a negitive from me regarding their view. Both sides can lay much unchristlikeness at the others feet depending on which time period and greater clout the current view had/has.