"Does regeneration precede or follow faith?" I'm writing a paper on this

[webdog]

The Greek is the Greek. Dr. Tom Schreiner agrees with my argument. Though I have the utmost respect for John of Japan, I will take Schreiner's word since he is a Greek and a New Testament scholar par excellence.

The Archangel

...and where did Schreiner agree with that? I recall there was a rebuttal by JoJ in regards to that position. I know Schreiner is an author, is he also a translator?

If the Greek is that clear on the matter, why is there even a hint of debate on the matter still today?

 

[percho]

The Archangel

I know no Greek. Well my cousin went to college and was D K E. That's about it.

What is the difference in these three words. They are from 1 John 5:1

γεγέννηται γεννήσαντα, γεγεννημένον

How does one know how to translate and do they mean the same? Could one or more be rightly translated conceived as is this from

γεννηθὲν, from Matthew 1:20

I see from various translations on BLB site that begotten is the preferred for the top three and only used twice for Matthew.

 

[The Archangel]

...and where did Schreiner agree with that? I recall there was a rebuttal by JoJ in regards to that position. I know Schreiner is an author, is he also a translator?

If the Greek is that clear on the matter, why is there even a hint of debate on the matter still today?

You can read Schreiner's article "Does Regeneration Necessarily Precede Conversion?"

While translators are a wonderful gift from God, Dr. Schreiner is far more than a translator. He is a Greek and New Testament scholar of the first order and regularly translates his own text. His command of the Greek language is second to none. He is, simply put, one of the finest New Testament scholars in the world.

As for why there is still debate...I suspect it is because people are more beholden to their presuppositions and precommitments and do not care to get into the intricacies of the Greek (or Hebrew) text to shed the proper light on the matter(s).

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

The Archangel

I know no Greek. Well my cousin went to college and was D K E. That's about it.

What is the difference in these three words. They are from 1 John 5:1

γεγέννηται γεννήσαντα, γεγεννημένον

How does one know how to translate and do they mean the same? Could one or more be rightly translated conceived as is this from

γεννηθὲν, from Matthew 1:20

I see from various translations on BLB site that begotten is the preferred for the top three and only used twice for Matthew.

γεγέννηται is a verb, the Perfect Passive Indicative, 3rd Person Singular form of γεννάω. The perfect tell us the action of the verb is suggesting a state arising from previous action. The Passive tells us the subject did not act upon himself or herself. The subject was acted upon by someone else. In this context God is the one acting on the subject and God's action produces faith that Jesus is the Christ.

γεννήσαντα is a participle, an Aorist, Active, Singular, Accusative, Masculine form of γεννάω. The Aorist shows the action presented in a "snap-shot" or its entirety. The Participle is Accusative, showing that it is the direct object of the sentence. In this case--because of the masculine singular--it is seen that this participle is referring to God, hence the ESV's translation as "The Father." Woodenly, the participle would be translated "The one having given birth" who is identified as God. God's action, here in this Participle, is Active. That is, it is He who is acting.

γεγεννημένον is also a participle, a Perfect, Passive, Singular Accusative, Masculine form of γεννάω. The Perfect, again, shows a state based on previous action. The Passive, again, means the action was not performed by the subject, but it was performed on the subject.

From Matthew 1:20...

γεννηθὲν is a participle, an Aorist, Passive, Singular, Nominative, Neuter form of γεννάω.

"Begotten" is an OK use, probably more germane to the KJV. "To be born" is acceptable too. There is a range of semantically acceptable ideas, mostly all relating to the concept of being born or giving birth. The ESV translates Matt 1:20 as "Conceived" and it is also within the range of the word.

Hope that helps! Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[glfredrick]

While translators are a wonderful gift from God, Dr. Schreiner is far more than a translator. He is a Greek and New Testament scholar of the first order and regularly translates his own text. His command of the Greek language is second to none. He is, simply put, one of the finest New Testament scholars in the world.

This assessment of Dr. Schreiner is accurate.

On top of that, he is also a pastor, who has led his church for close to a decade, he has written extensively on the subject of the Apostle Paul, Did a major commentary on Romans, and has recently published what is perhaps THE magnum opus of the theological world in his New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801026806/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Jarthur001]

Yet another verse.....

Jeremiah 24:7

And have given to them a heart .......to know Me, For I [am] Jehovah, And they have been to Me for a people, And I am to them for God, For they turned back unto Me with all their heart.

​

Notice the new birth here is "a new heart". The reason for the new heart....TO KNOW GOD.

 

[Jarthur001]

and another....

Psalm 65:4

"Blessed is the man whom the thou choosest, and causeth to approach unto thee

​

Notice there is a choosing 1st for the purpose of a action, here labeled a "cause", with the end being that the one chosen can come to God. This cause I believe is the new birth.

 

[Jarthur001]

Another passage...

Job 33..

14For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. >>>>(Dead to it)

​

NOTE: So how does Man believe???

15In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;>>>>>>>(DEAD)
16Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, >>>>>>>>(new Birth)
17That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.>>>>>>>>(salvation)
​

 

[Jarthur001]

Another verse....

John 1: 4......

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
​

NOTE:...Life comes before light/understanding.

 

[Tom Butler]

i've always been interested in the raising of Lazarus as an analogy.

When Jesus hollered "Lazarus, Come outa there," Lazarus obviously heard him, and came out of the tomb.

So, Lazarus was alive when Jesus called him out. In other words, he was made alive before he heard and responded.

Now, one might argue that the call from Jesus was the cause of Lazarus' being made alive. That's okay, I won't argue against that.

So, is this a good analogy for us Calvinists to use in our argument that regeneration precedes faith?

 

[webdog]

i've always been interested in the raising of Lazarus as an analogy.

When Jesus hollered "Lazarus, Come outa there," Lazarus obviously heard him, and came out of the tomb.

So, Lazarus was alive when Jesus called him out. In other words, he was made alive before he heard and responded.

Now, one might argue that the call from Jesus was the cause of Lazarus' being made alive. That's okay, I won't argue against that.

So, is this a good analogy for us Calvinists to use in our argument that regeneration precedes faith?

How do you know that, were you also in the tomb?

So, in your understanding of the Lazarus account, Christ calling him forward was not sufficient to raise him from the dead...he had to be made alive first. Is that correct?

 

[webdog]

While translators are a wonderful gift from God, Dr. Schreiner is far more than a translator. He is a Greek and New Testament scholar of the first order and regularly translates his own text. His command of the Greek language is second to none. He is, simply put, one of the finest New Testament scholars in the world.

Ok, you claim he is one of the finest and "second to none". Now, what is that measured on and based against? Isn't that subjective? I'm not being facetious, I want to know why I should understand his translation of the Greek pertaining to the text in question and not other scholars with similar credentials.

As for why there is still debate...I suspect it is because people are more beholden to their presuppositions and precommitments and do not care to get into the intricacies of the Greek (or Hebrew) text to shed the proper light on the matter(s).

So basically any other greek scholar has a flawed understanding? Is it not possible that Mr. Schreiner has the flawed understanding based on his own presuppositions? His translation of the greek is immutable?

If I recall (not being a Greek scholar) that text simply states that in the current state of believing, an action occurred at some point in the past which supports neither a pre or post faith regeneration. Those who are believing (present tense) have been born of God (past tense).

 

[The Archangel]

Ok, you claim he is one of the finest and "second to none". Now, what is that measured on and based against? Isn't that subjective? I'm not being facetious, I want to know why I should understand his translation of the Greek pertaining to the text in question and not other scholars with similar credentials.

It is a consensus view that Schreiner is a second-to-none scholar. His credentials are beyond question.

Schreiner is one who comes to the text to read the text and draw out what it actually says. If you were to read his Romans commentary, his mastery of the language (among many other things) would be evident.

So basically any other greek scholar has a flawed understanding? Is it not possible that Mr. Schreiner has the flawed understanding based on his own presuppositions? His translation of the greek is immutable?

The problem here is that some other "scholars" don't address the issue, for reasons I am unaware of. Schreiner's view is not a aberrant view. It is very common among New Testament scholars and those who have facility with Greek. And, by the way, it is Dr. Schreiner, not Mr.

If I recall (not being a Greek scholar) that text simply states that in the current state of believing, an action occurred at some point in the past which supports neither a pre or post faith regeneration. Those who are believing (present tense) have been born of God (past tense).

Did you read Schreiner's article? He addresses this very point.

Read paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 (paragraph 4 starting with "Several texts from 1 John...").

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

From paragraphs 4, 5 and 6

Several texts from 1 John demonstrate that regeneration precedes faith.

Starting with a presupposition.

The texts are as follows: “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” (1 John 2:29). “No one born 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” (1 John 3:9). “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7). “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whomever has been born of him” (1 John 5:1).
We can make two observations from these texts. First, in every instance the verb “born” (gennaô) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that precedes the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving, or believing.

I agree with all of this. Like I stated already, those who are practicing righteousness (present) have been born prior to the present action of practicing righteousness.

Second, no evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God.

Here is the error. First, nobody would say that and the text does not say that. The text also does not say being born predates faith. That is a great leap in logic that can only be read into the text.

Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (1 John 3:9), and loving God (1 John 4:7).

See above response.

It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ.

Complete false dichotomy based on the presupposition listed. 1 John 5:1 says nothing of God granting new life THEN we believe...it simply is not there and is not true. What it IS saying is what I (and opposing greek scholars to Mr. Schreiner) have maintained all along. It neither supports nor refutes a pre-faith regeneration.

If I understand it, the present tense is not normally used in Greek to show ingression, or beginning. Also, doesn't Daniel Wallace give only two instances when the present is ingressive (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 537) with none of the passages in 1 John fitting this?

 

[glfredrick]

Webdog, come on down to Louisville, and we'll sit down with Dr. Shreiner for lunch and hash it out... :thumbs:

Or, perhaps, I'll print your comments and email him to see what he has to say. Are you up for that? He's on campus today.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, come on down to Louisville, and we'll sit down with Dr. Shreiner for lunch and hash it out... :thumbs:

Or, perhaps, I'll print your comments and email him to see what he has to say. Are you up for that? He's on campus today.

Like I said, I'm no Greek scholar, but you can if you like.

Curious...if you cannot understand my arguments and points, how is he supposed to?

 

[Jarthur001]

i've always been interested in the raising of Lazarus as an analogy.

When Jesus hollered "Lazarus, Come outa there," Lazarus obviously heard him, and came out of the tomb.

So, Lazarus was alive when Jesus called him out. In other words, he was made alive before he heard and responded.

Now, one might argue that the call from Jesus was the cause of Lazarus' being made alive. That's okay, I won't argue against that.

So, is this a good analogy for us Calvinists to use in our argument that regeneration precedes faith?

Hello Tom,

I answer not as much for you, but for others to read. I say this because you bringing this passage up, shows you have examined it.

Lets see...Lazarus was DEAD.
For 4 days he was DEAD.

He was so dead he was decaying and many if not all could smell the decay.

As most dead people Lazarus could not hear. Before Jesus came around and said “come forth”, others were talking about. Some were crying. Lazarus heard none of this, because he was DEAD.

Jesus came and talked with others in town and near where Lazarus was DEAD. Lazarus however did not HEAR this, because he was DEAD.

It should be noted that Lazarus could not read the lips of others. Lazarus was DEAD and therefore could not see the lips to read the lips of others.

Now the Bible account does not tell us, but I am fairly sure others before Jesus talked directly to Lazarus did not stand around and say... “Lazarus...now come over here Lazarus .....and stop kidding around....you know your not DEAD Lazarus.....you are just joking.”

Why?

Well...because as the King James puts it... Lazarus stinketh....and they ....being bright people knew any one that stinketh the way Lazarus was stinking was DEAD and DEAD people cannot respond to others so they didn't waste their time asking him to stop joking around.

Lazarus cell phone was not on vibrating mode, because they did have cell phones. And...if they did have cell phones, Lazarus still would not be able to FEEL the vibrating pluses, because if are DEAD you cannot feel ANY THING. How about a earthquake? NOPE....not even a earthquake can you feel.

So...no life in Lazarus ..which means he can't hear, he can't feel, he can't see..nor could he BELIEVE if he was asked to believe something. HE WAS DEAD.

Just as in creation....in the NEW CREATION....Jesus WORD made life. Jesus said ...”come forth”...and there was life!!!

Yes Tom, I believe this is a good passage.

 

[webdog]

...and the problem in comparing physical death to spiritual death is quite evident. Was Lazarus spiritually dead, or physically? While his body rotted...was his soul separated from God in Hell for those 4 days?

 

[glfredrick]

Like I said, I'm no Greek scholar, but you can if you like.

Curious...if you cannot understand my arguments and points, how is he supposed to?

It is not my understanding that is in question. You are attributing errors to Dr. Schreiner and he may wish to address your points directly.

 

[glfredrick]

...and the problem in comparing physical death to spiritual death is quite evident. Was Lazarus spiritually dead, or physically? While his body rotted...was his soul separated from God in Hell for those 4 days?

Therein lies the main problem, no?

Here, you seem to be indicating that a person who is as yet unregenerated is merely "sin-sick" or some other concept along those lines. Is that your position, or if not, could you clarify?