Featured Syntax of 1 John 5:1 as a proof for monergism

I'm really reluctant to get involved here, since I leave for Africa on Monday and have much to do. So this may be my only post here. But I have to say that James White is wrong; the syntax says no such thing as he wishes it does. I just taught participles to my kids in Greek 102, and James misses the target in several basic respects.

1. Participles show aspect but not time. Therefore you cannot pin down a time that the participles in the verses in question took place. In other words, there is no evidence that that participial usage here depends on the perfect tense of the main verb either logically or consecutively.

2. The usage of the participle in all three places is substantival. That is, the participles are being used as nouns, since they are all preceded by Greek articles. Apparently White does not understand that nouns (or substantival participles or substantival adjectives) do not show time or logical sequence.

3. The idea being put forth is cause and effect, which is somewhat the perfective aspect. However, Greek does not normally show cause and effect with a perfect tense preceded by a substantival participle. In translating the NT into Japanese, I recall no case where it does.

 

In the beginning chapter John shows is Christ, then in verse 3 he begins to make his point. His desire is that those who have believed can have fellowship, he is writing verse 4 states that "your joy might be full" clearly the syntax of the book is focused on fellowship or abiding with Christ that is it deals with our walk as believers. Again we see fellowship coupled with salvation in chapter 2 verse 27 then 28 states now little children abide on Him, there it is again, if you have confident know that is believe He is righteous then everyone that does that which is righteous is of Him. Chapter 3 we don't know exactly how what our resurrected bodies will be like but we shall have a resurrected body like His. When we have hope on Him. Throughout the entire book John hammers home our walk and abiding in Him!

 

Yes, the perfect tense has the aspect of a past action with continued results. However, the results are those of the action in the verb itself, not necessarily something in the immediate syntax. For example, there is the well-known perfect tense of tetelestai on the cross, "It is finished." However, there is nothing in that immediate context to tell us what is finished--certainly no noun or substantival participle or adjective.

 

I just made up some tee shirts for this thread:

I came here debate, and all I got was a grammar lesson and this lousy tee shirt!

 

I see that yours is an attractive view, but I simply don't find it in the syntax.

Thanks much. I'm going to be training African Bible translators.

 

I love grammar! And let me know when you get the tee shirts made, and I'll order one. Cool

 

Let me put it a different way, folks. In 1 John 5:1 (and the similar forms in the other references White gives, "the one doing" and "the one loving"), the substantival participle "the believing one" is the subject of the sentence, being in the nominative case. Now the subject of a sentence is never caused by the verb, nor does the verb exist without or in a time sense, prior to or after its subject. If I say, "Joe was knocked out," is "knocked out" somehow the cause of Joe, or does the "knocked out' situation exist prior to Joe's existence? No, of course not. It's subject and verb working together contemporaneously.

In a more technical vein, Daniel Wallace lists the following usages of the Greek perfect in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 574-582): intensive perfect, extensive perfect, aoristic perfect, perfect with a present force (Robertson's "present perfect"), gnomic perfect and proleptic perfect. Having just looked through these in Wallace, for the life of me, I can't figure out which one White thinks applies here to make his point valid. None of them are described by Wallace with the meaning White wants.

Just one more word here. Cause and effect in koine Greek is usually portrayed by a hina clause, a hoti clause, or dia with the accusative. None of these structures are in play in these verses.

I could say more, but I should work on my Africa preparation. Toodleoo.

 

Thanks, Tim.

I did try to find White's explanation on the film, but couldn't.

I probably won't be able to post anymore, but I'll look for your replies to my posts tomorrow, anyway. (I don't do Internet at home, so can't over the weekend.)

 

Sorry, Greektim, I mistook the thread.

Let's just look at the quote from David Alan Black I put on the other thread:

"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). Therefore, in 1 John 5:1 the participle (believing ones) and the main verb (have been born) are happening at the same time, and the main verb did not cause the substantival participle.

 

Remember that the aspect of the present tense can be one of two: imperfective or aoristic. In this case I make it out to be aoristic--simply looking at the believing as an action, not a continued action necessarily. How does that relate to the perfect passive verb? Simply as the subject of the sentence. There is no Greek noun "believer," so this substantival participle is simply the subject of the sentence--nothing more. "Secondly, many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 615). He mentions pan ho akouwn in particular, very close to 1 John 5:1 in form.

The participle does not show time, but only aspect. And as I mentioned there are two possibilities for the aspect, so I think it is a mistake to be dogmatic about that.

Why must there be a causation at all in this passage? I simply don't see it. The believing is not portrayed as causing the regeneration or vice versa. You'll have to look to other passages for that.

Note the Friberg definition for gennaw:
"genna,w—1. be or become the father of, beget lit. Mt 1:2ff, 20; J 8:41; 9:34; Ac 7:8, 29. Fig. J 1:13; 1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10; 1 J 2:29.—2. of women: bear Lk 1:13, 35, 57; Ac 2:8; 22:28 .—3. fig. cause, produce 2 Ti 2:23." [pg 38]

In almost every usage in the NT it means simply to bear or be born. There is not causation other than to give life. In the example given of a figurative usage, "cause, produce," what is caused is in the accusative (2 Tim. 2:23): γεννῶσιν μάχας. (2Ti 2:23 BYZ), "they cause a quarrel." Since 1 John 5:1 has "the believers" in the nominative, by what stretch of the imagination does White say the regeneration (being born) causes the believing? Please give a NT example showing this usage.