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

[revmwc]

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???

First let's untwist the question. Btw if there is misspelling this time it is because I am having to use my phone at my secular work for impatient people. Doing righteousness now is that man's or God's? Many will at the GWT judgement list all the things they did in Christ name and yet be lost because they depended on their works and supposed book knowledge rather than having truly Believed on the Lord. So after one has believed and come to faith they perform righteousness and they have agape' love in their life of course even then they must choose to follow righteousness and practice love. Some never learn too however but they are nonetheless saved and going to heaven.

 

[revmwc]

Friend the question Greektim posed to you was so simple it could be answered by a babe in Christ who knows the truth. In fact the correct answer shows whether one understands the true Gospel at all. Most would be happy to answer it immediately.

Most weren't at work and helping with things in preparation of twin grand boys coming in a few months

 

[Greektim]

First let's untwist the question. Btw if there is misspelling this time it is because I am having to use my phone at my secular work for impatient people. Doing righteousness now is that man's or God's? Many will at the GWT judgement list all the things they did in Christ name and yet be lost because they depended on their works and supposed book knowledge rather than having truly Believed on the Lord. So after one has believed and come to faith they perform righteousness and they have agape' love in their life of course even then they must choose to follow righteousness and practice love. Some never learn too however but they are nonetheless saved and going to heaven.

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.

 

[revmwc]

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.

Both say those who do these are born of and the same Greek term gennao or gegennEtai all the same Greek word that has either is or has been as seen in 1 John 5:1. This who are saved that is born of Him, born of God are so to produce them. After they have believed.

 

[Greektim]

Both say those who do these are born of and the same Greek term gennao or gegennEtai all the same Greek word that has either is or has been as seen in 1 John 5:1. This who are saved that is born of Him, born of God are so to produce them. After they have believed.

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".

 

[revmwc]

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".

Not one person can accomplish Doing Righteousness, knoweth God and Loving with agapao' or God's love. The cause is of course being born of God. These can't be accomplished until they are born of God but how does one become born of God? John 3:5 born of water and of Spirit, when does that occur? To have these they must be born of Him, Born of God, born of Water and of Spirit. When does all this occur and to whom when they believe. Does it have to say it in the verse now as believers shouldn't we know that it takes believing to be born of God? Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God and that produces being born of God.

 

[Greektim]

Not one person can accomplish Doing Righteousness, knoweth God and Loving with agapao' or God's love. The cause is of course being born of God. These can't be accomplished until they are born of God...

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".

Does it have to say it in the verse now as believers shouldn't we know that it takes believing to be born of God? Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God and that produces being born of God.

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.

 

[revmwc]

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.

Problem is you are adding to gegennEtai has when the word is born from according to the dictionaries and lexicons I find so you add has to it when is would work or born from works without either. Now has benefits perfectly too in that one who has believed becomes born from or of God. It doesn't as some believe mean God regenerated them before they believed. It only construes that at some point in the past they were born of God and all these attributes came to those who are born of God. How were they born of God because they chose to believe.

 

[Greektim]

Problem is you are adding to gegennEtai has when the word is born from according to the dictionaries and lexicons I find so you add has to it when is would work or born from works without either. Now has benefits perfectly too in that one who has believed becomes born from or of God. It doesn't as some believe mean God regenerated them before they believed. It only construes that at some point in the past they were born of God and all these attributes came to those who are born of God. How were they born of God because they chose to believe.

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".

 

[revmwc]

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".

That has not been the question it the adding to it to make it something it's not that has the problem. Has been takes it to some point in the past. Where if is as the KJV uses is saying they are born at that point which also doesn't fit God the Holy Spirits order. The order is at a point in the past the believer became born of God that is a child of God. And all those attributes came to the ones born of God. The problem we have is that 1 John 5:1 makes it clear the ones born of are that way because they believed on the Son of God and because of them choosing to believe because as I pointed each individually believes their belief is from their on choosing. Some take the has been which is added as you say for better comprehension of the English to mean that God has given them faith. But God caused them to be born of Him because of the faith they place in Him. But taking it as simply born of as the word means takes that connotation away and simply says they are born of because of Fairh.

 

[TCassidy]

And of chi is the Ch in many so there is technically a c in the Greek but it is of course followed by an 'h'

Well, actually, the English soft "c" is supplied by the Greek σ or ς. The English hard "c" is supplied by the Greek κ. The Greek χ supplies the hard "kh" sound.

Again, please, don't try to make us believe you have any knowledge of Greek at all. It is patently obvious you don't.

 

[TCassidy]

I am going to give it one last try, and if this doesn't work I am going to quit trying. Attempting to enlighten revmwc on the very basic, rudimentary, rules of Greek grammar is like banging my head against a concrete wall!

You keep saying things like "has been" was added for clarification. That is not true. Nothing has been added.

Let's look at it this way, you keep saying the Greek word is gennao (it's not, but for the sake of argument we will say it is), okay. The word gennao means "born." But there is more to the word. The word also has an extra "ge" on the front and the "etai" on the back, gegennetai. Think of it this way. The "ge" on the front means "has" and the "etai" on the back means "been."

Therefore the word gegennetai means "has been born." Does that help?

(My apologies to all those reading the thread who actually understand Greek. I know the above bears no resemblance to the facts of Greek grammar and syntax, but since facts apparently have nothing to do with this thread I feel completely vindicated!)

 

[Greektim]

That has not been the question it the adding to it to make it something it's not that has the problem. "Has been" takes it to some point in the past. Where if "is" as the KJV uses "is" saying they are born at that point which also doesn't fit God the Holy Spirits order. The order is at a point in the past the believer became born of God that is a child of God. And all those attributes came to the ones born of 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

The problem we have is that 1 John 5:1 makes it clear the ones born of are that way because they believed on the Son of God and because of them choosing to believe because as I pointed each individually believes their belief is from their on choosing. Some take the "has been" which is added as you say for better comprehension of the English to mean that God has given them faith. [This is actually false. We are putting "has been" with "born" since that is was the text indicates, that we were first born by God and as a result believed.] But God caused them to be born of Him because of the faith they place in Him. But taking it as simply born of as the word means takes that connotation away and simply says they are born of because of Fairh.

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.

 

[revmwc]

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

I stated that the born of is past tense at some past time they being born of God are still presently children of God. First in 1 John 2:29 it states "If ye know that righteous exist," Thus refering to Christ, now what does it mena know that, that is Faith and Faith causes one to have righteousness, this of course Parallels Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Faith is counted for Righteousness, and therefore because of that Faith John is stating in 1 John 2:29 "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."
There it is clearly, "those who believe (ye know) that He (Christ) is Righteous," then will produce righteousness because "they are born of Him, but how the first portion states because "ye know" that is Faith and that Faith is from them.
1 John 4:7 "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God" Again it is clear as John can make it those that Love with "Agapoa" do so because they being born of God Love, what drives them being Born of God and how were they Born of God, by "knowing" that is "Believing." We see it here "theos gennao kai ginosko ho theo" which states, "God born of that know these God" Those who know (believe) God love as He loves. Again it is what they know that is believe.

Now we see Vines for the word "gennao:

Vines:

"It is used metaphorically (a) in the writings of the Apostle John, of the gracious act of God in conferring upon those who believe the nature and disposition of "children," imparting to them spiritual life, John 3:3,5,7; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18;"
Conferred upon those who believe what is conferre upon those who believe, "gennao" that is they are born of God because they believed not because He caused them to believe.

 

[revmwc]

I stated that the born of is past tense at some past time they being born of God are still presently children of God. First in 1 John 2:29 it states "If ye know that righteous exist," Thus refering to Christ, now what does it mean know that, that is Faith and Faith causes one to have righteousness, this of course Parallels Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Faith is counted for Righteousness, and therefore because of that Faith John is stating in 1 John 2:29 "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."
There it is clearly, "those who believe (ye know) that He (Christ) is Righteous," then will produce righteousness because "they are born of Him, but how the first portion states because "ye know" that is Faith and that Faith is from them.
1 John 4:7 "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God" Again it is clear as John can make it those that Love with "Agapoa" do so because they being born of God Love, what drives them being Born of God and how were they Born of God, by "knowing" that is "Believing." We see it here "theos gennao kai ginosko ho theo" which states, "God born of that know these God" Those who know (believe) God love as He loves. Again it is what they know that is believe.

Now we see Vines for the word "gennao:

Vines:

"It is used metaphorically (a) in the writings of the Apostle John, of the gracious act of God in conferring upon those who believe the nature and disposition of "children," imparting to them spiritual life, John 3:3,5,7; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18;"
Conferred upon those who believe what is conferre upon those who believe, "gennao" that is they are born of God because they believed not because He caused them to believe.

Went to change spelling and punctuation but was timed out after 5 minutes, so sorry.

 

[Greektim]

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

I stated that the born of is past tense at some past time they being born of God are still presently children of God.

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.

First in 1 John 2:29 it states "If ye know that righteous exist," Thus refering to Christ, now what does it mena know that, that is Faith and Faith causes one to have righteousness, this of course Parallels Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Faith is counted for Righteousness, and therefore because of that Faith John is stating in 1 John 2:29 "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."
There it is clearly, "those who believe (ye know) that He (Christ) is Righteous," then will produce righteousness because "they are born of Him, but how the first portion states because "ye know" that is Faith and that Faith is from them.

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....

1 John 4:7 "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God" Again it is clear as John can make it those that Love with "Agapoa" do so because they being born of God Love, what drives them being Born of God and how were they Born of God, by "knowing" that is "Believing." We see it here "theos gennao kai ginosko ho theo" which states, "God born of that know these God" Those who know (believe) God love as He loves. Again it is what they know that is believe.

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.

Now we see Vines for the word "gennao:

Vines:

"It is used metaphorically (a) in the writings of the Apostle John, of the gracious act of God in conferring upon those who believe the nature and disposition of "children," imparting to them spiritual life, John 3:3,5,7; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18;"

Conferred upon those who believe what is conferre upon those who believe, "gennao" that is they are born of God because they believed not because He caused them to believe.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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

This is one of those unfortunate times where the fault was only partially with the KJV translation committees. The error actually stems from an error in the Bishops' Bible from which the KJV was revised. The Bishops' Bible reads, 1 John 5:1 "Whosoeuer beleueth that Iesus is Christe, is borne of God: And euerie one that loueth him which begat, loueth hym also which is begotten of hym." The KJV translators failed to notice or correct the error.

Now we see Vines for the word "gennao:

Except that is NOT the word (for about the 20th time!). The word is γεγεννηται. Transliterated, for those who can't read Greek, the word is gegennetai.

 

[Browner]

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".

 

[revmwc]

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.

Born of God, How?

Righteousness imputed, How?

Agapao, How?

Because they have intimate knowledge, How?

Everywhere we see the command to believe it doesn't state they have Faith so that they can believe, not even here in 1 John. Not one place will you find God saying I have given you Faith so you must believe, no Jesus stated "whosoever believeth", Paul told the Philippian Jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house" in Romans 10:13 He stated "call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
By Faith that by Believing on the righteous one, the Son of God bottom line John is making that connection in all of the book of 1 John. Paul in Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

There we see how we obtain and do righteous it is by Faith, that is Faith by believing. Paul states not one thing about his faith given from God is counted for righteousness. So the "born of" found in the 1 John Passage is always qualified by those who "know" this or that, to know is to have Faith isn't, for instance if I stated, I know the Bible is true and I know Jesus came to die for my sins and I trust Him to be my savior, and I call upon you Lord for Salvation." What does "I Know" mean, that I have confident expectation that is "Faith" that is Believing it with all my Heart, Soul and Strength, that comes because of my volition which God gave me. Where does volition come form it is a God given ability. In that sense and that sense only then God would give us Faith, through the Volition He has given to all mankind.

 

[TCassidy]

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

I have come to the conclusion it is because he does not understand your counter points. He has insufficient knowledge of not only Greek grammar and syntax, he is equally lacking in his understanding of English grammar and syntax.

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.

But he doesn't understand that.

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.

Again, he not only doesn't understand what you are posting, he doesn't understand what he is posting. He is just copying and pasting from reference works he doesn't understand or copying random words which he strings incoherently together.

And its like you're not reading my posts.

He is reading them, he just isn't understanding them.

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

I don't think he is being deliberately dishonest (except possibly about his having studied Greek) but rather just doesn't have the necessary knowledge of Greek to understand what you are posting, or even to understand the cut and paste he is posting.

I am going to recommend this thread be closed as it has hit an impasse. Not because of disagreement but because rev is in way over his head.