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

By all means, handle your priorities first. But I would rather wait in silence than get a dodge. That said, let's move on.

Here is what is killing me. 1 John 2:29 and 4:7 don't mention "has believed" and "come to faith" and yet you insist that they do. However, those verses do talk about "having been born by God" (like 1 Jn 5:1). So the question I posed and continue to pose to you is: which happens first in those verses? Does "doing righteousness" and "loving" cause spiritual birth? Or does spiritual birth cause "doing righteousness" and "loving"?

Let's try this again.

 

But you didn't answer the question... not clearly anyhow. And you mentioned "after they have believed" as if the verses in question (2:29 & 4:7) had anything to say on that matter. Let's stick to the texts in question before adding on faith. We can move on to 1 John 5:1 once you answer clearly the question below.

Again: which causes what in 1 John 2:29 and 4:7? Does "doing righteousness" and "loving" cause "have been born by God" Or does "have been born by God" cause "doing righteousness" and "loving".

 

Great! So we agree on this so far. The clear implication of 1 Jn 2:29 and 4:7 is that spiritual birth from God (regeneration) causes "doing righteousness" and "loving".

Well.... No.... But when it does, it is super helpful to theology. And 1 John 5:1 is one of only a few verses I can think of that deals with the topic of spiritual birth and faith together. So with that in mind, it becomes of greater importance than the theologizing you were doing. Not that you are wrong to make those theological inferences. But that those inferences are secondary when there is a text of Scripture that speak to the subject clearly and directly.

Now here is why I bothered mentioned 1 John 2:29 and 4:7... Because they have the exact same grammar, structure, and syntax with the phrase in 1 John 5:1. The exact identical parallels clearly indicate that the same outcome can be supplied to 5:1 as well.

So here is what we mean. You have a present active participle with the article acting as the subject of the perfect passive verb gegennetai "has been born" along with the prepositional phrase "by God/Him". All 3 verses have this same exact structure.

2:29 the one doing righteousness has been born by God
4:7 the one loving has been born by God
5:1 the one believing has been born by God

Now if in the first 2 clauses, spiritual birth from God is the cause of the subject's action ("doing righteousness" and "loving"), then it is logical to understand 5:1 to be indicating the same thing since it is indicated by the same structure and syntax.

Therefore, spiritual birth from God is the cause of the subject's action, "believing" in this case.

This is not forcing the text to say something. This is trying to be honest with the text and use other passages to help bring out the clarity of the author's syntax.

 

I'll answer your issue you raised here. And I'll try not to be condescending when I do it.

But I must first point out that you didn't deal with the argument I raised. You didn't point out the errors of my argument. You only raised a different idea.

Ok... so the "problem" you seem to be seeing is that we are adding words to gegennetai. Yes it comes form the word gennao which literally means "I birth" or "I am birthing." But gennao is 1st singular person present active indicative. That is the lexical form of all verbs in all lexicons (though some want to change it to the infinitive). However, Greek is an inflected language, which means the word changes to indicate its grammatical function. English is not inflected. We have to add words and use word order to convey the same ideas that are in the grammar of Greek.

Thus, gegennetai is 3rd person singular perfect passive indicative. That means it is a verb controlled by a "he/she/it" unless there is a noun in the nominative case making it the subject. That means the subject is singular not plural. That means the perfect tense gives it a completed action in the past with ongoing results into the present. That means that the action of the verb is being done upon the subject. The only way to bring all of this out into English is to supply words. Therefore, gegennetai is translated "he/she/it has been born" not based on some theological system but the grammar of the verse.

In the other thread on 1 Jn 5:1, John of Japan (not a calvie), agreed with all of this.

This is not a conspiracy. This is being faithful to the original language.

Therefore, 1 Jn 5:1 should be translated, "The one believing has been born by God".

 

I think it would help tremendously if you started using quotation marks and better punctuation. I added a few marks in your quotation above to help clarify.

The reason we keep insisting that "has been" comes before the verb "born" is because the grammar of the verb is perfect passive. Passive means that the subject of the verb (the ones "doing righteousness" and "loving" and "believing") is receiving the action of the verb. Thus we add "been" to indicate this in English. Perfect tense, to simplify, is a past tense. It means a complete action in the past with ongoing results in the future. This is not just a simple past tense. If it was, we'd translate it "the one loving was born by God." But it is a perfect tense. So to bring out the grammar, we translate it "the one loving has been born by God." We are not adding anything to the text that is not there.

The fact is, the KJV is wrong to simply use "is" to bring out the passive voice. "Was" would have been closer since it makes it past tense

And here is the point of all of this.

You claim we are forcing our theology on the text. Yet you are adamant that it is human faith that causes one to be born by God.

Here is your problem that you have to answer. You claimed that being born of God is what causes a person to do righteousness and love in 1 John 2:29 and 4:7. Yet in 1 Jn 5:1 you have the exact same grammatical structure and syntax. Therefore, to be honest, fair, and consistent with the text, you'd have to also maintain that 5:1 teaches the same: that being born of God is what causes a person to believe.

So the onus is on you to tell us why John uses the same grammatical structure in 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 yet mean 1 thing in the first 2 and something opposite in 5:1.

 

You still aren't offering any counter points to the objections I've raised.

Wonderful, however the past tense is in relation to its immediate context. In this case, the past tense verb "has been born" is past in relation to the subject which the action of the verb is acting upon it. Therefore, "has been born" is past tense in relation to the "believing" and "loving" and "doing righteousness". You have already admitted as much when you said that in 1 Jn 2:29 and 4:7 spiritual birth is the cause of "loving" and "doing righteousness". That's because of the past tense.

This is all irrelevant because you've already admitted that the grammar and syntax here in 2:29 indicates that one doing righteousness is caused by their spiritual birth. And since the same grammar and context is in 4:7 and 5:1, you'd think the author was trying to say something through consistent structures. Hmmmm....

No! We do not see here "theos gennao kai ginosko ho theo [sic]"!!!! If that were translated it would be incoherent and say, "I, God, birth and I, God, know." Your transliteration is not found in any Greek text. You are changing Scripture, sir.

That aside, your point is still moot. YOu have already admitted that spiritual birth causes one to love.

And for you to simply equate know=faith is absurd. To know God implies more than faith but relationship, even intimate relationship. The fact is, you are adding so much to the text b/c you know the text nails your system to the wall.

Vines??? Really?

And its like you're not reading my posts.

Follow me here. 1 Jn 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 all have the exact same grammar and structure and wording.
You say the subject of the verb "has been born" in 2:29 and 4:7 is only able to do rightouesness and love because of sprititual brith.
Yet in 5:1, you say it is the opposite. You say it is the subject "believing" that caused the spiritual birth "has been born". Yet the grammar, syntax, and wording is identical.

If you were being honest, you'd have to admit that you are not being consistent here.

 

Too bad all of people's time spent on learning Greek
isn't spent on hearing God's voice!

Of course, to benefit ... one must actually be OPEN to hearing
correct doctrine, which is in opposition to "the doctrines of men".