Regeneration does precede Redemption

[The Archangel]

John of Japan,

I've been doing some more reading on the substantive participle. Wallace claims:

First, in relation to the infinitive, although participles and infinitives are often translated the same (especially when the infinitive is translated as a gerund), there is a distinct difference. "Whereas the infinitive is abstract, speaking of the act or fact of doing, the participle is concrete, speaking of the person who or thing which does."

Second, with reference to its verbal nature: Just because a participle is adjectival or substantival, this does not mean that its verbal aspect is entirely diminished. Most substantival participles still retain something of their aspect. A general rule of thumb is that the more particular (as opposed to generic) the referent, the more of the verbal aspect is still seen. (See the introduction for detailed discussion.) [Emphasis mine] Wallace, Grammar, p. 620?--available here

Unfortunately, I don't have access to Wallace's introduction, but it would seem that your suggestion that the substantive participle can only be taken as a simple subject is not, perhaps, the best way to take it. Certainly it is not as forceful as it normally would be, but I think Wallace shows that it not totally bereft of the verbal aspect.

Second, as you mentioned, Greek doesn't have the word "believer." But, Greek is well-known for stating what we know in English as "believer" as "the one believing." Attic Greek, as I was reading, had seen some morphing based on common usages. That obviously didn't happen by the Koine period, so I think Koine intends to say "the ones [presently] believing, not simply and generically "believers." In this way, I think, Greek is much more of a savory and specific language.

Third, the adjective πας has been overlooked in our discussion. I think your assertion that it is a simple subject would be much more plausible if πας was not present. It may also be possible that πας is saying "anyone" because πας can, at times, take on the meaning of "any" (although this reading would be in the vast minority and doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence unit). I tend to think "everyone" and "the ones believing" compliment each other in the sense that some of the verbal aspect is returned to the participle. In any event, I think the inclusion of "everyone" returns some of the verbal qualities to the substantive participle because "everyone" is qualified to some degree by "the ones believing" and there is, in essence, a symbiotic relationship between these words in this particular sentence.

Fourth, the participle does, by definition, have a verbal aspect and in this case that aspect is present active. It should be the case that, though weakened a bit, the participle is communicating that certain people are, at present, believing.

Thoughts?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I asked for the names of respected Greek scholars. Piper is not known as a Greek scholar. I just looked up Schreiner and he's known as a "Pauline scholar."

I just looked up John R. W. Stott and it is the guy I was thinking of - an Anglican preacher who teaches annihilationism (no hell). He's not known as a Greek scholar.

These may be very bright men (though I question Stott's biblical discernment regarding hell) but not Greek scholars.

Three strikes and you're out.

I'm sorry, my dear, but you are incorrect. Piper and Schreiner are Greek scholars of the first order. Any Pauline scholar can make quick and easy work of John's Greek. Paul's Greek is very intricate and John's is much more simple.

Piper's Greek skills are prevalent. Just because these guys haven't written a Greek grammar, doesn't mean they're not scholars in the language (especailly when you consider A.T. Robertson wrote what is considered the definitive Greek grammar about 80 or so years ago).

As for Stott, he has preached annihilation, which I vehemently disagree with. But, just because he gets one thing wrong doesn't mean all the rest of his work must or should be discounted. After all, there are dirty cops, but when someone breaks into your house, you still call the cops...not a plumber.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

So this verse doesn't get buried.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Once again, this verse clearly shows that believing is the condition to be born again, regenerated, made spiritually alive.

You can't reverse this verse like you do 1 John 5:1.

 

[The Archangel]

Did you actually read this article by Wallace? He wrote about the substantival participle: "Third, the aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it.19 Thus, for example, ὁ βαπτίζων in Mark 1:4 does not mean "the one who continually baptizes" but simply "the baptizer."20 Indeed, it cannot mean this in Mark 6:14, for otherwise John would be baptizing without a head ("John the baptizer has been raised from the dead")!"

John,

I don't think anyone is arguing that the action of believing in this substantive participle is "continuous" as in "continually believing."

Also, Wallace states "the aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the context requires it." Wallace does not say it "must be." Also, the context he gives of John the Baptist and the context we are discussing are, obviously, quite different.

I'll ask this question with all due respect: Is it possible that you are taking the John the Baptist contextual issue (which you and Wallace are absolutely correct on) and making that an across-the-board rule when the rule itself is not across-the-board?

For me, please explain why the John the Baptist context fits the 1 John 5:1 context.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Havensdad]

But these don't say "already." You are putting that there.

If something is in the past (born again) and the other is in the present (believing) that means the first was already done. Period.

I assume Greek scholars translated these passages above and none of them insert "already" like you do. I think I will take their translation over yours.

Actually they did. The Greek Perfect tense denotes an action that is already completed in the past, but with continuing results. The fact that anyone who PRESENTLY believes, HAS BEEN (past tense) born again, inherently contains "already." I only include the word "Already" to help convey what is already demanded by the English (and even moreso in the Greek) grammar. That is, that anyone who believes, presently, has, past tense, been born again.

 

[Havensdad]

Did you actually read this article by Wallace? He wrote about the substantival participle: "Third, the aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it.19 Thus, for example, ὁ βαπτίζων in Mark 1:4 does not mean "the one who continually baptizes" but simply "the baptizer."20 Indeed, it cannot mean this in Mark 6:14, for otherwise John would be baptizing without a head ("John the baptizer has been raised from the dead")!"

Did you? I was noting that what Archangel said about the substantival participle, (i.e. that the verbal aspect is not completely removed), is correct according to Wallace.

 

[Havensdad]

So this verse doesn't get buried.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Once again, this verse clearly shows that believing is the condition to be born again, regenerated, made spiritually alive.

You can't reverse this verse like you do 1 John 5:1.

#1 There is no order given here. Had John desired to demonstrate that belief resulted in receiving spiritual life, the placement of the conjunction "ινα" would most likely be different.

#2 Also, unlike the verse in question (1 John 5:1) the participle in this case, is in the same tense as the verb. You do not have a "this then that" construction.Hence..

#3 The present active subjunctive verb, along with the similarly inflected participle would read in thee Greek, something like "believing, you might keep on having life."

#4 Last, you are really stretching the use of the word "life" here. There is nothing inherent in this verse, which would denote it as the new birth. It could just as well be referring to the "abundant life" that Christ speaks of which is distinct from the New Birth (John 10:10).

We know from Christ himself, that no one can even see the Kingdom, much less believe, unless they are first born again (John 3).

 

[Marcia]

I'm sorry, my dear, but you are incorrect. Piper and Schreiner are Greek scholars of the first order. Any Pauline scholar can make quick and easy work of John's Greek. Paul's Greek is very intricate and John's is much more simple.

Piper's Greek skills are prevalent. Just because these guys haven't written a Greek grammar, doesn't mean they're not scholars in the language (especailly when you consider A.T. Robertson wrote what is considered the definitive Greek grammar about 80 or so years ago).

As for Stott, he has preached annihilation, which I vehemently disagree with. But, just because he gets one thing wrong doesn't mean all the rest of his work must or should be discounted. After all, there are dirty cops, but when someone breaks into your house, you still call the cops...not a plumber.

Blessings,

The Archangel

So do they all use the grammar of 1 John 5:1 to prove regeneration precedes belief? Even if they do, I still disagree. Just a simple reading does not say what you say it is saying - the point of the verse is that those born of God love others born of God. It's not about the order of salvation at all.

 

[Allan]

John,

I don't think anyone is arguing that the action of believing in this substantive participle is "continuous" as in "continually believing."

But you were.. presumably with me earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by Allan
I don't disagree that it is a statement of fact but that does not negate the verb for 'believing' as being both current and continuous. However I believe it should also be noted that in the Greek our faith or 'believing' is often used in the continuous tense without emphasis on a fixed past point and a one time action, or completed action. Thus, as far as I can tell, the grammer does not preclude the continuous intent of the verb nor does the 'perfect tense' in the passage imply a chronology of the between the noun and verb - as in, this-then-that. However I believe the context establishes this 'continuous tense' for the one who is currently 'believing'.

Originally Posted by The Archangel
The problem with your above statement is two-fold:

1. "Believing" is not a verb. It is a participle and, as such, does not act as a verb.

Belief may be used in different ways, perhaps, but the grammar here is specific.

To which I responded about my usage of the 'word' verb - here:

Originally Posted by Allan
I realize that it is not itself in this case 'a verb', I was meaning to speak more to the verb tense(s) of which the word (believing) is used to describe the object/subject (the ones).

and your statement of believing not being considered continous here as well:

This is where you lose me. I don't think believing is considered to be "continuing" action. Grammatically, it is a statement of fact (of sorts), not a continuing process/action, etc.

Am I misunderstanding something here? It appears that was exactly what you were doing earlier with me when speaking about on the verbal tense and not that the word was specifically a 'verb'.

Also, Wallace states "the aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the context requires it." Wallace does not say it "must be." Also, the context he gives of John the Baptist and the context we are discussing are, obviously, quite different.

I'll ask this question with all due respect: Is it possible that you are taking the John the Baptist contextual issue (which you and Wallace are absolutely correct on) and making that an across-the-board rule when the rule itself is not across-the-board?

I'm not JoJ but I would state no, but I think you are misunderstanding what JoJ is refering to.. it might be just me (I might be seeing it differently than him and what he is saying ) so I will let him elaborate on 'his' understanding.

 

[Marcia]

If something is in the past (born again) and the other is in the present (believing) that means the first was already done. Period.

No, it does not necessarily meant that at all. Especially when there are other scriptures that indicate belief first. And there are.

Actually they did. The Greek Perfect tense denotes an action that is already completed in the past, but with continuing results. The fact that anyone who PRESENTLY believes, HAS BEEN (past tense) born again, inherently contains "already." I only include the word "Already" to help convey what is already demanded by the English (and even moreso in the Greek) grammar.

No, it doesn't inherently contain "already," not in the sense you mean it, which is a chronological sense. You are trying to see chronology here were there is none.

That is, that anyone who believes, presently, has, past tense, been born again

It does not mean they were born again first, simply that all who believe have been born again. That is how it is translated in the versions I posted.

 

[Allan]

If something is in the past (born again) and the other is in the present (believing) that means the first was already done. Period.

There is a gaping problem with your understanding of the Greek here.
It is not refering to presently, as in this just happened, but is specifically refering to their state of being, currently in belief. This acatully places the action of said faith, not being something that has happened here in the present but that it has 'already' happened in the past and the result is continuing currently in the present. Remember who John was writing to- people who were 'already' believers. And for what purpose was he writing them? So that those who are believers (his intended audience) can know they have, not just received, eternal life.

Thus going back to my first post in this thread:

We know the perfect tense refers to an action with permanent results. Yet to assume being "born" refers chronologically to being born before believing Christ is, I believe, a misunderstanding regarding the emphasis of the perfect tense, most specifically here, since it is used with present force. The perfect tense is not to establish a fixed time in the past (chronology) but establish that something in the past occurred and now has continuous results.

We have to remember is the primary meaning of the Greek tenses is not time, but type of action (sometimes called aktionsart ). As shown you stated earlier the participle for believe is present and the main verb, "born of," is perfect passive indicative. Thus the main verb represents the action as completed with the results continuing until the present time. The participle, though it is a present participle, doesn't in this case indicate time but condition, "the one who believes."

Continuing with your post:

Actually they did. The Greek Perfect tense denotes an action that is already completed in the past, but with continuing results. The fact that anyone who PRESENTLY believes, HAS BEEN (past tense) born again, inherently contains "already." I only include the word "Already" to help convey what is already demanded by the English (and even moreso in the Greek) grammar. That is, that anyone who believes, presently, has, past tense, been born again.

Exactly, it is a statement of fact about their current condition, and this 'current condition', is the result of their being born, not their believing.

 

[Joseph shall add]

A good study. Regeneration as understood from the Greek, Is active, present ,past tence and Future,

I want you good people to know regeneration will drive you nuts. Regeneration is really a great wonder but it is confusing to study.

The since is that before a person ever heard of God that God has been working in the time of that person life to prepare him to receive Christ. Thus it is a work that predates actual salvation, so it is past tence, While at the same time, It is on going from day to day after salvation so it is in the present and also it is future tense because tomorrow is another day.

 

[The Archangel]

But you were.. presumably with me earlier in the thread:

To which I responded about my usage of the 'word' verb - here:

and your statement of believing not being considered continuous here as well:

Am I misunderstanding something here? It appears that was exactly what you were doing earlier with me when speaking about on the verbal tense and not that the word was specifically a 'verb'.

I'm not JoJ but I would state no, but I think you are misunderstanding what JoJ is referring to.. it might be just me (I might be seeing it differently than him and what he is saying ) so I will let him elaborate on 'his' understanding.

Allan,

This post really throws me for a loop, my friend.

I don't think I've ever argued that the participle itself is showing continuous action. I've read through the original postings between you and me and, for the life of me, I can't understand why you think I'm arguing "continuous action." Quite to the contrary, I'm arguing a present reality--there are people and they are [presently] believing.

Maybe I'm going crazy--I have been in the house for almost a week--maybe I have cabin fever.

I have always argued that there are two grammatical facts in this sentence: 1. There are people presently believing and 2. God has done a work ("borning" people again) in the past and that action on His part stretches to the present. These two facts are based on two totally separate textual units--#1. being the substantive participle and #2 being the perfect passive verb. It is the relationship of these two independent textual facts that causes the connection that present belief (the participle) is because of God's past action (the verb).

I hope that is clear...again, I may have cabin fever.

Please do me a favor, re-read the original postings and see if you can see what I'm saying so, if there is a need, I can clarify.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

I've been doing some more reading on the substantive participle. Wallace claims:

Unfortunately, I don't have access to Wallace's introduction, but it would seem that your suggestion that the substantive participle can only be taken as a simple subject is not, perhaps, the best way to take it. Certainly it is not as forceful as it normally would be, but I think Wallace shows that it not totally bereft of the verbal aspect.

Well, first of all, I don't believe that the substantive participle can only be taken as a simple subject. It's more complicated than that, and I don't really want to do the work to explain it all here. As for 1 John 5:1, yes I do believe that it should be taken as the subject of the sentence. In fact, didn't you say something similar early on in this thread? If o pisteuwn is not the subject of the sentence, than what is, other than that implicit in the verb form?

Second, as you mentioned, Greek doesn't have the word "believer." But, Greek is well-known for stating what we know in English as "believer" as "the one believing." Attic Greek, as I was reading, had seen some morphing based on common usages. That obviously didn't happen by the Koine period, so I think Koine intends to say "the ones [presently] believing, not simply and generically "believers." In this way, I think, Greek is much more of a savory and specific language.

And now, this is precisely my point in the whole thread. Since there is no koine word for "believer" then how in the world would a first century koine speaker say it? Without any verb aspect involved? That would have been impossible. Ergo, when o pisteuwn appears it simply means "believer" or "believers," nothing fancy.

Are you familiar with transformational grammar? It analyzes grammar like this. You start with a basic sentence, "John throws the ball." You then transform it in various ways: John threw, will throw, can throw, doesn't throw, etc. If I were to do a transformational grammar of koine Greek, the transformation for "He is a believer" (using a noun) can only be the substantive participle. There is no other way to say it.

Third, the adjective πας has been overlooked in our discussion. I think your assertion that it is a simple subject would be much more plausible if πας was not present. It may also be possible that πας is saying "anyone" because πας can, at times, take on the meaning of "any" (although this reading would be in the vast minority and doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence unit). I tend to think "everyone" and "the ones believing" compliment each other in the sense that some of the verbal aspect is returned to the participle. In any event, I think the inclusion of "everyone" returns some of the verbal qualities to the substantive participle because "everyone" is qualified to some degree by "the ones believing" and there is, in essence, a symbiotic relationship between these words in this particular sentence.

Sorry, this all sounds too complicated to me. I'm a simple man. :smilewinkgrin: I just see pas as an adjective, modifying the subject of the sentence. I've never seen a grammar saying the adjective gives the subject of a sentence more verbal whatever. Except in Japanese, where the adjective can actually become a verb! But I digress.

Fourth, the participle does, by definition, have a verbal aspect and in this case that aspect is present active. It should be the case that, though weakened a bit, the participle is communicating that certain people are, at present, believing.

Thoughts?

Blessings,

The Archangel

If I grant this for the sake of argument, I still have to say, when did they begin believing? The present does not say. (You need an aorist or a perfect for that, maybe even a pluperfect.) They could very well have begun believing at the same time as regeneration, we don't know from the present tense. All we know is a present condition. So again, there is no order of salvation in 1 John 5:1.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

This post really throws me for a loop, my friend.

I don't think I've ever argued that the participle itself is showing continuous action. I've read through the original postings between you and me and, for the life of me, I can't understand why you think I'm arguing "continuous action." Quite to the contrary, I'm arguing a present reality--there are people and they are [presently] believing.

Maybe I'm going crazy--I have been in the house for almost a week--maybe I have cabin fever.

I have always argued that there are two grammatical facts in this sentence: 1. There are people presently believing and 2. God has done a work ("borning" people again) in the past and that action on His part stretches to the present. These two facts are based on two totally separate textual units--#1. being the substantive participle and #2 being the perfect passive verb. It is the relationship of these two independent textual facts that causes the connection that present belief (the participle) is because of God's past action (the verb).

I hope that is clear...again, I may have cabin fever.

Please do me a favor, re-read the original postings and see if you can see what I'm saying so, if there is a need, I can clarify.

Blessings,

The Archangel

That was 'why' I was asking IF there was something I was misunderstanding from your post -- and there was :laugh:

Acatully, there is someone who is arguing for the substantive participle being 'continuous', Me. However I am not saying this is the main aspect to be observed or its main thrust, but that the verbal aspect can not necessarily be divorced from the participles meaning either. The verbal aspect or tense elaborates on the noun's condition, 'believing ones/believers', which illistrates that at some point in the past these 'ones' believed, not giving us a 'when' this transpired. Nothing more than this is my point. And as such IMO, no chronology should be or can be devined from this text.

 

[John of Japan]

Frankly, none of my grammars discuss the substantival participle as far as I'd like them to. But I found something A. T. Robertson said (amid the 1200 some pages he produced!) that is interesting: "One is not to confuse with this idiom the so-called 'substantival participle' of some grammars, which is a term used for the substantivizing of the verbal force of the participle, not the adjectival.... I confess that I see nothing to be gained by applying 'substantive' to the purely verbal aspects of the participle. Confusion of thought is the inevitable result" (p. 1109).

Remember that the participle was originally an adjective in classical Greek. Now in the case of o pisteuwn, this is adjectival in my book, making it similar to the substantival adjective, not the verbal version.

 

[Havensdad]

simply that all who believe have been born again. That is how it is translated in the versions I posted.

If all who believe, "have been" born again, this excludes the possibility that one believes, and then is born again, since that would render this statement of scripture false.

Also: There is not a single verse in scripture, which denotes being "born again" proceeding from belief. It is always shown the other way around. Being born again is an act of the Spirit: He moves "where He wills" (John 3), and all we see is the result (belief/faith).

 

[Havensdad]

There is a gaping problem with your understanding of the Greek here.

No, there is not.

It is not refering to presently, as in this just happened, but is specifically refering to their state of being, currently in belief. This acatully places the action of said faith, not being something that has happened here in the present but that it has 'already' happened in the past and the result is continuing currently in the present.

No sir. This is present tense, meaning it is happening now. There is nothing that says this "belief" already happened. That would be a different tense.

Remember who John was writing to- people who were 'already' believers. And for what purpose was he writing them? So that those who are believers (his intended audience) can know they have, not just received, eternal life.

Right. He is saying "You believe, therefore, you were born again." He is NOT saying "If you believe you will be born again," nor is he saying "you were born again, because you believed." He is clearly predicating their belief, as being proof that they have been born again: which necessarily means that being "born again" is first.


Similar constructions are found in 1 John elsewhere:

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

(Why does the person love? Because they have been born of God).

1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God

(Why do they believe that Jesus is the Christ? Because they have been born of God.)

1Jn 5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world.

(Why do they overcome the world? Because they have been born of God.)

1Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning

(Why don't they keep on sinning? Because they have been born of God.)

1Jn 2:29 ... everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.

(Why do these people practice righteousness? Because they have been born of God.)

It is interesting that John lists out several "proofs" of salvation, which have the same kind of sentence structure, word usage, etc., but you claim that JUST in that one sentence, contrary to the actual grammar of the sentence, the order is reversed.

Belief is clearly shown to be a result of being born again: just like righteousness, those who overcome the world, etc.

 

[Marcia]

If all who believe, "have been" born again, this excludes the possibility that one believes, and then is born again, since that would render this statement of scripture false.

Also: There is not a single verse in scripture, which denotes being "born again" proceeding from belief. It is always shown the other way around. Being born again is an act of the Spirit: He moves "where He wills" (John 3), and all we see is the result (belief/faith).

Did you see what JoJ wrote?

still have to say, when did they begin believing? The present does not say. (You need an aorist or a perfect for that, maybe even a pluperfect.) They could very well have begun believing at the same time as regeneration, we don't know from the present tense. All we know is a present condition. So again, there is no order of salvation in 1 John 5:1.

There is no indication grammatically of when belief started. See his post #194.

 

[Havensdad]

Did you see what JoJ wrote?

There is no indication grammatically of when belief started. See his post #194.

Not so. There IS an indication. It shows that belief cannot precede regeneration, or else this is false.

John's entire point in these verses, is to show how one can know they have been born of God. He lists fruits of being born again, including righteousness, love, etc., Belief is included in those, with the same construction.