Featured 1 John 5:1 we become Sons of God after believing, Regeneration after Faith

The verse actually proves the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
Gegennetai and gegennemenon are both in the Perfect Tense. ESV. 'Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been [already, once and for all] born of God.'
As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:1, 'No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Sprit.'

 

First of all, I guess you were unwilling to engage in my thread a few weeks ago where I dealt with this very issue: Syntax of 1 John 5:1 as a proof for monergism (calvinism)

Secondly, you clearly have not grasped the Greek here, as was pointed out. Do you even know what a perfect tense verb in Greek looks like, much less what it means aspectually related to time?

Third, your transliteration is incorrect. What you did was list the Greek words in their lexical form, but not as they actually appear in the text in their inflected form. Here it is in the TR in case you thought there would be a variant or something: ο χριστος εκ του θεου γεγεννηται; ho Christos ek tou theou gegennatai. The last word is the perfect passive verb to which you said "carries no such perfect passive verb" and earlier in the OP where you made the outrageously wrong claim "that perfect passive verb is not in the original language, as we see above." I don't think you can see it b/c you don't know Greek.

Fourth, your statement is quite convoluted where you say, "the KJV has the word is added as that verb however those perfect passive verbs must be added to help the English flow the words in the Greek carry no such meaning." The Greek is a perfect passive and should be rendered "has been born". Not sure what point you were trying to make other than to expose your lack of knowledge of Greek.

Fifth, and this is the most important, if you believe that the text is indicating that we have been born by God because of our beleiving then would you say the same thing is true of 1 Jn 2:29 and 4:7 where they say in the same grammatical form and syntax "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him" and "every one that loveth is born of God" respectively? In other words, would you say similarly that these texts are indicating that we have been born by God because of our doing righteousness or loving? In other words, you say that faith caused being born by God. But for your argument to hold water, you'd have to say the same thing is taught in 2:29 & 4:7 with the same exact construction and that doing righteousness and loving is what caused us to be born of God. Do you believe that???

 

We really need to improve our punctuation. But I'll try to muddle through it.

First. you aren't doing transliteration. You are simply changing the inflected form the Greek to its lexical or dictionary form. No wonder you don't see the real verb tenses. You are actually changing the text.

Second: no one is adding the words "have been" to the verb "born". Those words need to be supplied in English to make some sense of the perfect tense and passive voice of the verb gennao which is rendered in all 3 verses as gegennatai. So in every case, it should be he/she/it (and in this case the subject is the articular substantival participle "believing" or "doing" or "loving") has been born.

Third: you actually made my point and shot yourself in the foot. You say "not one of us can produce righteousness that God accepts apart from being 'born of God'". FACT! We are agreed. Therefore, you are interpreting 1 Jn 2:29 in such a way where being born of God causes the righteous doings. Then you said "not one person can produce these things [like doing righteousness and love] apart for being of God [sic.; assuming you mean "being born of God"]. FACT! Therefore you are interpreting 1 Jn 4:7 in such a way where being born of God causes one to love others.

If that is the case, then you are forced to make the same conclusion of 1 Jn 5:1. You must interpret it to say that being born of God causes one to believe. Ergo, regeneration causes faith.

You have to say that because the same exact grammar and syntax is present in each of those 3 passages. The only thing that is different is the substantival participle acting as the subject of the perfect passive verb gegennetai "having been born": dong righteousness, loving, believing.

Therefore, monergism is correct here. Your faith doesn't cause your spiritual birth. It is your spiritual birth that causes your faith.

 

As others have answered you, nope, not even close. But you are tenacious when you're wrong, I'll give you that!

 

I hate to do this, but let's break this down and really pick it apart.

My thoughts are in red, fyi.

Can you quote the verse that said that? You are conflating "believing" from 1 Jn 5:1 onto 2:29 and 4;7. All 3 have "have been born" by God/him, but only 5:1 mentions "believing". So each verse is not teaching about faith but being born by God. What you should say is "having been born by God causes one to love, produce righteousness and faith.

Manipulate Scripture??? You are the one who has been transliterating incorrectly. What you wrote is incoherent Greek. It certainly is not what the actual Greek text has.

Who cares about the English??? I care about the Greek. And the Greek uses a perfect tense passive voice verb gegennatai from the word gennao. Perfect tense typically means a completed action in the past with ongoing results into the present. The closes we have for such a thing is the helping word "have/has". The passive voice also requires a helping word in English "being". Therefore, the phrase gegennetai ek theou must be translated "he/she/it has been born by God." This isn't about fitting a doctrine. It is simply Greek grammar.

This makes no sense! You have yet to display the original writing nor the ability to transliterate it. All you do is take the lexical form of each word and transliterate that. And this is not about "making the English flow" but rather bringing out the perfect tense passive voice verb in translation!!!

None of that removes the implications that John is making by way of his grammar, semantics, and syntax. You can no more say that than I could of any text that you are arguing for. Rather, the syntax of each word to each other is what eventually results in understanding the intent of the letter as a whole. You can't understand the letter as a whole without addressing the grammar and syntax of each word and phrase.

There are numerous verses that state the purpose or intention of the letter of 1 John. And 1 John 1:9 isn't any of them. So I am thinking that your last argument doesn't even hold water since that is not even John's stated purpose for writing. Look at 1:4 and 5:13 (off the top of my head).
Rev, I believe you can't read Greek. What in the world qualifies you to engage in the discussion of its grammar and syntax??? I can't tell a surgeon how to operate. Maybe you should stop telling grammarians and translators how to do their jobs.

This isn't about forcing a doctrine into a text. It is about being honest with the text and seeing the text give the only viable option based on grammar, semantics, and syntax.

 

Maybe we can do it from this angle.

Which causes what in 1 Jn 2:29 and 4:7?

Does "doing righteousness" and "loving" cause one to be born by God. Or is does being born by God cause one to do righteousness and love others???

 

TCass... can you ban revmwc since he is changing the text of Scripture to suit his purpose???

I ask partly in jest.

But have you notice what he's been doing? When he thinks he is transliterating, he is simply taking the lexical form of every word and rendering that rather than the inflected form that appears in the text. Ergo, he doesn't say the text says gegennatai but simply gennao. And if it is gennao then it is neither perfect nor passive. What is more, the Greek that he does put up breaks Greek grammatical rules and is simply incoherent nonsense. Like the preposition ek taking the nominative theos??? Or using Christos as the subject of a 1st person singular verb gennao. He is changing the text, I've told him this, and he has no idea what he is doing or talking about. He is doing more harm than good to the text.

 

This sums it up imo...

 

Yup. This is what I have been talking about. This type of teaching is not about 'differing opinions' whatsoever. It is flat out blatant error and it is witnessed time and again.

 

Instead of spelling it... can you parse it?

Can you tell us the verb's person, number, tense, voice, and mood???

(you learn this in 1st semester Greek, btw)

 

My friend, several have here attempted to correct you on several areas of theology and soteriology many times.

Take some advice, you either need to go sit under some sound men and listen, and hang up your pride as you are in error, and allow correction. Or, you could listen to the good men of God in this thread who are attempting to correct you with sound instruction. Please do not teach this error to others. What you are teaching is grave error and that teaching needs to be opposed as does some of your other teaching.