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

I'll let you know when White responds... if he responds. Maybe I can hound him on facebook.

I acknowledge Machen's quote, though it is a bit dated. Plus, as a beginning grammar, he may be stating a general truth for simplicity sake. Aren't first year grammars notorious for this? But I'll give you Machen.

The thing w/ Dr. Black's quotation is that (1) the force of the temporal significance is mostly directed by context and (2) he is speaking "especially true of adverbial participles". These 2 points are observed in his examples he provided. Neither were articular or adjectival (thus not substantival) and they were both directed contextually to see some temporal force in regards to the main verb. I think the main verb gegennetai does make that indication for some sort of causal sequence. Let me explain with your quotation:

Grammar is similar? Try identical. Pas + article + substantival present participle + gegennetai + ek theou (or autou). Now there might be some extras in some cases, as in an object for the verbal action of the participle (doing righteousness). But still identical.

So if "loving" and "doing righteousness" are signs of spiritual birth, would it not follow that they are logically subsequent to spiritual birth? Maybe not "result" in the strict sense, but still part of the entire cause/effect sequence of salvation, starting with the new birth and eventually demonstrating that new birth with consistent living such as "love" and "doing righteousness"?

 

I'm not sure how I communicated this, but that was not my intent. Quite the opposite, that substantival participles are adjectival rather than adverbial.

I've not heard from Dr. White, and I'm not entirely sure that I will. But I'll keep trying. I asked him to probe Wallace since he knows him personally. But I think White misused Wallace to make his case. And that is disingenuous. I don't want my "side" built on bad info.

I think that is a stretch. John could just as easily added "believers in Christ" or some such. The grammar is still identical. Similarly with "loving" such as "all lovers of the brethren" (which may be implied in the context, btw). So giving a substantival participle an object doesn't mean it is less substantival. 2:29 can be "each doer of righteousness have been born by God." No clause needed. The participle is still acting as a noun with a verbal action thus an object. If it were Paul, he probably would have just created a new word. But that's not John's style.

 

Is that really what you believe about illumination? I know many scholarly critics that can intelligibly understand Scripture. But its truths have not taken root.

 

That is exactly the problem. They fall into the category of the "natural man" and so forth. But they can still make intelligible sense of the Bible. But the truths do not take root and affect (or even effect) their lives.

 

Yes and no. I believe God uses the medium of language to communicate truth. Otherwise, charismatic tongues/gibberish could rightly be called a valid form for God to communicate so long as the people are depending on the Spirit to receive whatever it is they are to receive. Bible translations would need to be accurate... or exist in any intelligible or meaningful way so long as you have the Spirit. Much like evangelism, God has ordained for his people to be the medium of carrying the gospel. Yet it is the Spirit that must effectually change the heart. It is both/and not either/or.

PS-I put a quote in the Edersheim thread that I'd like you to respond to, in case you didn't see it.

 

Not by the definition of "clause" that I am aware of. There is no verb in that phrase. The noun has a verbal characteristic to it. But that is not a clause.

Wallace states that a clause is made up of "a subject and predicate or a nonfinite verbal form (i.e., either an infinitive or participle)" (p. 656). There is neither a predicate nor does the participle count since the participle is the subject and Wallace says that it must be a subject and a participle.

 

So minor that it is infinitesimally small. So small, it might as well be identical.

I'd argue that the participle "doer" requires an object for it to have meaning. A doer of what? Sin? No. Righteousness. "Believer" or "lover" does not need an object, though it could have one if so desired.

But as you say, not much to fuss about. 1 John 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 are nearly identical enough that we could argue that the same terms and structure indicates the same use of the grammar and syntax in each of the 3 cases. I think that is fair to say.