Regeneration does precede Redemption

[exscentric]

"Thanks for participating, JoJ! The strange thing is, not having a command of the Greek like Arch ,Allan or yourself, I came to that same conclusion from just reading the English with an open mind :laugh:"

Reminds me of a first year seminary class full of Greek/Hebrew students and myself with trouble handling English. Prof posed a question then let us, well them, argue their views for three class periods. There were three positions that developed. After the third day I went home and read the entire book in the NASB and the passage was clear as a bell in context. However the bell did not fit any of the three positions.

Went to the profs office and asked if I could change my position (we had to declare a position the second or third day). He said no but with a smile on his face asked what I had found. I told him what I had done and what I thought the clear "other" position was. He just grinned and said he would see me in class the next day. Yep, he presented a position just as I had found in the ENGLISH :laugh:

This is not to detract in any way from those than have fathomed the Biblical languages. I've seen the benefit many times over the years and wished that I had struggled through some language study though with my difficulties I don't know that I could have learned anything. :laugh:

 

[psalms109:31]

Holy Spirit

I am glad for those who God choose before the cross to prepare the way for our Saviour. Men not empowered by the Holy Spirit could not do it.

2 Chronicles 16:9
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."

I am also Glad that God has also included with them those who have heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed.

I praise God that we do have good news for the world, whosoever and all who believe.

I still believe they waited for the Holy Spirit and with Holy Spirit came with gifts at Pentecost. The last person besides Jesus who had the Holy Spirit before the Pentecost was John the Baptist.

Read John 14 and 16

 

[The Archangel]

John of Japan, et al.

I appreciate the interaction. I really appreciate John of Japan's comments. I think, however, that I may not have explained myself correctly.

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

My premise is that regeneration precedes redemption, this is not news. But this verse, while not a proof text (and I did not intend it to be so) supports this claim. Why?

Everyone believes (the participle) is present. Now, John of Japan is correct that this participle is to be understood as a noun. However, the subject(s) are doing something--believing that Jesus is the Christ. Now, I do not intend to say anything more than that. The participle is stating a simple fact--there are people and they are a believing people. The participle does not tell us how or why they are believing.

So, to state it more simply: The subject is "the ones believing" and it is simply stating this fact--there are people and they are, at present, believing.

The real crux of the verse, however, is not the substantive participle, it is the perfect passive verb "has been born."

The perfect passive means that something was done to the subject (not by the subject) in the past and what was done has lasting effects into the present.

Here "all" governs both the singular "believing ones" and "has been born." Since both the participle and the verb are singular but the "all" basically make them effectively plural. Why is this important to note? Because the implied subject of "has been born" is "he." We could say "The ones believing..., they have been born of God."

So, to, again, state it more simply: What John is saying is this being born of God is something we do not do to or for ourselves. It is done to us at a past point in time and the effect stretches into the present.

The verse then, with all the nuance, would say: "The one(s) who are presently believing that Jesus is the Christ, they have been born (again) by God at some point in the past and that action of God has effects in the present.

So, the perfect passive verb is far more important to this clause than the substantive participle.

Let me break this down:

We have a simple present fact: There are ones who are presently believing.

We have verb stating past action by someone else with that action stretching into the present: They have been born again by God in the past and God's action effects the present.
​

So, it must be that the present fact is impacted by God's past action. In other words, God's past action which stretches into the present is what causes (for lack of a better term) the present state of the subject--not the other way around.

So, I hope that clears up my argument.

John of Japan, please comment on the nature of the verb in this clause. I think that would clear up much.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel, please share with me what grammarian you know of that agrees with you on this verse.

I can't find a grammarian who even comments on Piper's view (and yours) of the verse. I've checked Robertson (both A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research and A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, his intermediate grammar), Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Brooks and Winbery on Syntax of New Testament, Dana and Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. None of them comment on any of the grammar of 1 John 5:1. Only Wallace mentions the verse in his index (three times), but those mentions are only in passing.

Please also point me to a commentator who agrees with you. I have checked all of my Greek commentators, and found none: A. T. Robertson, Alford's classic five volume set, Wuest, Vincent, the New Testament Study Bible.

John,

I looked through Robertson and couldn't find a reference and I couldn't find a reference in Wallace (although I had to look at them on the internet as I am familiar with them, but don't own a physical copy--something I'm working on). Now, when I said "I can't find a grammarian who disagrees with me" I should have stated that much more carefully. Perhaps I should have said I can't find a grammarian who contradicts this interpretation. That would have been much more to the point of what I was thinking. Brain--fingers--disconnection.

As for commentaries. I read Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Stott, the Expositor's commentary (which quoted James Montgomery Boice), Danny Akin, etc. I also searched through Tom Schreiner's New Testament Theology and he references the passage several times. But, I looked at them after looking at the Greek and, to my surprise, they agreed with me!

Schreiner, while technically not a grammarian, has ridiculously mad Greek skills. His Romans commentary comments on the grammar of nearly every passage--it is an all-inclusive commentary.

The grammar stuff that I am getting at is not based on the participle, but the verb. Furthermore, the juxtaposition of the two--with the tenses, moods, etc.--is where this interpretation comes from. It is not the participle proper or the verb proper, it is both.

Anyway! That's what you wanted to know. And...I did like Wallace's thing about John the Baptizing even after dead. That' was hilarious and an excellent example. I laughed when I read it, long before you posted it. I am happy that you did post it, it's good comic relief!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Thanks, John! I was not the one who asked you to weigh in, but I was thinking of it.

This is what I said it is saying - Everyone who believes has been born again.

Marcia,

I agree with the above statement as long as it is understood that we believe because of God's work. God's work does not commence based on our belief.

By the way, how's the snow?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[John of Japan]

"Thanks for participating, JoJ! The strange thing is, not having a command of the Greek like Arch ,Allan or yourself, I came to that same conclusion from just reading the English with an open mind :laugh:"

Reminds me of a first year seminary class full of Greek/Hebrew students and myself with trouble handling English. Prof posed a question then let us, well them, argue their views for three class periods. There were three positions that developed. After the third day I went home and read the entire book in the NASB and the passage was clear as a bell in context. However the bell did not fit any of the three positions.

Went to the profs office and asked if I could change my position (we had to declare a position the second or third day). He said no but with a smile on his face asked what I had found. I told him what I had done and what I thought the clear "other" position was. He just grinned and said he would see me in class the next day. Yep, he presented a position just as I had found in the ENGLISH :laugh:

This is not to detract in any way from those than have fathomed the Biblical languages. I've seen the benefit many times over the years and wished that I had struggled through some language study though with my difficulties I don't know that I could have learned anything. :laugh:

Loved the story! :laugh:

Concerning 1 John 5:1, I think a good translation will bring the reader to the same place as the Greek will--if only one can abandon one's presuppositions! And there's the rub.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan, et al.

I appreciate the interaction. I really appreciate John of Japan's comments. I think, however, that I may not have explained myself correctly.

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

My premise is that regeneration precedes redemption, this is not news. But this verse, while not a proof text (and I did not intend it to be so) supports this claim. Why?

Everyone believes (the participle) is present. Now, John of Japan is correct that this participle is to be understood as a noun. However, the subject(s) are doing something--believing that Jesus is the Christ. Now, I do not intend to say anything more than that. The participle is stating a simple fact--there are people and they are a believing people. The participle does not tell us how or why they are believing.

So, to state it more simply: The subject is "the ones believing" and it is simply stating this fact--there are people and they are, at present, believing.

Well said. Now, I made the point that the verb loses force in the substantive usage. You've pretty much reiterated that here. But, hey, even if I were to admit the normal aspect of the present participle here--continued action or state in the present--we still have nothing in the grammar to tell us when they began believing: before, at the instant of (my position), or after regeneration. It would be really stretching the nature of the present participle (never mind the substantival use) to make the believing be after the regeneration simply from the present participle.

The real crux of the verse, however, is not the substantive participle, it is the perfect passive verb "has been born."

The perfect passive means that something was done to the subject (not by the subject) in the past and what was done has lasting effects into the present.

And I agree with this. That is the meaning of the present passive. I think the vast majority of conservative theologians would agree that it is God who regenerates. I certainly believe that.

Here "all" governs both the singular "believing ones" and "has been born." Since both the participle and the verb are singular but the "all" basically make them effectively plural. Why is this important to note? Because the implied subject of "has been born" is "he." We could say "The ones believing..., they have been born of God."

So, to, again, state it more simply: What John is saying is this being born of God is something we do not do to or for ourselves. It is done to us at a past point in time and the effect stretches into the present.

Still all true. I agree.

The verse then, with all the nuance, would say: "The one(s) who are presently believing that Jesus is the Christ, they have been born (again) by God at some point in the past and that action of God has effects in the present.

So, the perfect passive verb is far more important to this clause than the substantive participle.

I'm not sure how you get that the perfect passive verb is "far more important." Don't we believe in verbal inspiration? Every word is important. How is a verb more important than a noun?

Let me break this down:

We have a simple present fact: There are ones who are presently believing.

We have verb stating past action by someone else with that action stretching into the present: They have been born again by God in the past and God's action effects the present.
​

So, it must be that the present fact is impacted by God's past action. In other words, God's past action which stretches into the present is what causes (for lack of a better term) the present state of the subject--not the other way around.

So, I hope that clears up my argument.

John of Japan, please comment on the nature of the verb in this clause. I think that would clear up much.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Here is where we part company. You've explained the aspect of "believing" well enough, but I think you are reading too much into the tense of the substantive, and I've quoted several grammarians who appear to say so.

Can you come up with a grammarian giving the same weight of the tense that you do to a substantival participle? Any substantival participle anywhere in the NT? None of the grammars I have allow that.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

I looked through Robertson and couldn't find a reference and I couldn't find a reference in Wallace (although I had to look at them on the internet as I am familiar with them, but don't own a physical copy--something I'm working on). Now, when I said "I can't find a grammarian who disagrees with me" I should have stated that much more carefully. Perhaps I should have said I can't find a grammarian who contradicts this interpretation. That would have been much more to the point of what I was thinking. Brain--fingers--disconnection.

Hope you can afford the good grammars someday. And keep that Greek sharp--translating a verse or two a day in your devotions is a great way to do that, for just one way. (Maybe you're already doing something similar.)

But even an intermediate grammar agreeing with you would be nice! Keep looking. I have David Alan Black's intermediate grammar at the church (so I couldn't check it yesterday), but surprisingly he didn't even mention the substantival participle. There's a place on the Internet with PDFs of some old classical grammars, but I can't give you the address right now. But I'd really like to know of any grammar that allows for what you are saying--that the substantival participle still has the force in time of the present active indicative.

As for commentaries. I read Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Stott, the Expositor's commentary (which quoted James Montgomery Boice), Danny Akin, etc. I also searched through Tom Schreiner's New Testament Theology and he references the passage several times. But, I looked at them after looking at the Greek and, to my surprise, they agreed with me!

Schreiner, while technically not a grammarian, has ridiculously mad Greek skills. His Romans commentary comments on the grammar of nearly every passage--it is an all-inclusive commentary.

Personally, I rarely look at NT commentaries anymore that aren't commentaries directly on the Greek. But I do have The Expositor's Bible Commentary, with Glenn W. Barker on 1 John in vol. 12 agreeing with you. Here's what he says: "'Believing' in Jesus (present tense in the Gr.) is a direct consequince of our 'having been born' (perfect tense in Gr.) of God and therefore becomes a 'test' or proof of that birth" (p. 348).

Now, what has Barker done? He's looked at the tense of the verb and ignored it's usage as a participle, which is a cardinal sin in Greek exegesis. Are you aware of the controversy raging in Greek circles right now on aspect versus time? On the one side you have Stanley Porter saying that the Greek tenses hardly even mean time at all. On the other side you have Daniel Wallace blowing away Porter in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

In my understanding of the current controversy, and based on my own experience in translating the entire Greek NT (though I'm not a scholar, and my rough draft was full of holes as my co-translators and editors have shown me), in the indicative time has meaning, past, present and future, though aspect is also important. In the infinitive and participle, though, aspect is far more important. You have aorist participles that are obviously describing an action in the future, for example, or present participles that are describing something in the past.

So in 1 John 5:1, to do a good job on the Greek, you'd have to find other places where the substantival use of a present active participle clearly referred to action in the present. Good luck with that! You can do it with a good, advanced Bible program like Bible Works or Bibloi (what I use).

So, I'm interested, do any of your commentaries that agree with you actually discuss the substantival use of the participle, or do they simply say like Barker, "Oh, it's a present tense, so it's referring to action in the now, and therefore the perfect tense of the main verb shows that regeneration precedes faith"? I'd love to know more how your commentaries handle the substantival participle here.

The grammar stuff that I am getting at is not based on the participle, but the verb. Furthermore, the juxtaposition of the two--with the tenses, moods, etc.--is where this interpretation comes from. It is not the participle proper or the verb proper, it is both.

Anyway! That's what you wanted to know. And...I did like Wallace's thing about John the Baptizing even after dead. That' was hilarious and an excellent example. I laughed when I read it, long before you posted it. I am happy that you did post it, it's good comic relief!

Blessings,

The Archangel

I'm not sure how the position you take is not dependent on the participle. The only way you can get that regeneration precedes faith from 1 John 5:1 is by the participle referring to an action in present time, or at least clearly after the regeneration.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, I did a grammar search with my software of John's writings (all I have time for right now), and found 14 matches for a Greek substantive participle with pisteuw, believe. Interestingly enough, we have exact matches in our beloved John 3:15-16, "all who believe." (The exact match also occurs in John 12:46.)

Now, think about those two verses. If we say that the verb aspect applies to the substantive participle, "those who are believing," then salvation is no longer instantaneous, but a process. If we say that the present time applies to the substantive participle, so that those who are now believing will have everlasting life, then those who believed in the past or will believe in the future will not have eternal life, evidently. We don't believe either of these things, do we?

So, John 3:15-16 should show why the substantive use of the participle should be treated as a noun, nothing more and nothing less. And don't be surprised at this, neither Chinese nor Japanese have participles! And in Japanese, the verb can become an adjective with the right suffix, after which that adjective can become an adverb or become a verb again. Isn't language fun? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Havensdad]

Okay, I did a grammar search with my software of John's writings (all I have time for right now), and found 14 matches for a Greek substantive participle with pisteuw, believe. Interestingly enough, we have exact matches in our beloved John 3:15-16, "all who believe." (The exact match also occurs in John 12:46.)

Now, think about those two verses. If we say that the verb aspect applies to the substantive participle, "those who are believing," then salvation is no longer instantaneous, but a process. If we say that the present time applies to the substantive participle, so that those who are now believing will have everlasting life, then those who believed in the past or will believe in the future will not have eternal life, evidently. We don't believe either of these things, do we?

So, John 3:15-16 should show why the substantive use of the participle should be treated as a noun, nothing more and nothing less. And don't be surprised at this, neither Chinese nor Japanese have participles! And in Japanese, the verb can become an adjective with the right suffix, after which that adjective can become an adverb or become a verb again. Isn't language fun? :smilewinkgrin:

John,

I realize that English may be your second language, but I have one major bone to pick with everything that you have been saying. It is simply this: the translators of nearly EVERY major, modern, translation disagrees with you.

1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes (present)that Jesus is the Christ has been (past)born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (ESV)

1 Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes (present)that Jesus is the Messiah has been (past) born of God,*(HCSB)

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


The fact is, John, that in the English, this is definitive: the belief is rendered subordinate to the past tense occurrence of having been born again. Those who believe, have been born again: not those who are born again, have believed.

These different translators, from nearly every major (not including paraphrases and non-literal translations) modern version, all place one's present belief as dependent upon the past action of God on the person: i.e. being born again. They did it for a reason. These different translators, who possibly represent the best in Biblical Greek scholarship, cannot simply be ignored.

 

[Skandelon]

Besides the debate surrounding the grammar, shouldn't we also consider the obvious intent of the author? The fruit if believing in God is being born of God just as the fruit of loving the Father is loving his children. The proof is in the puddling. I personally think John would laugh at all the semantics and debates over this one phrase...or he'd be disgusted.

 

[The Archangel]

Well said. Now, I made the point that the verb loses force in the substantive usage. You've pretty much reiterated that here. But, hey, even if I were to admit the normal aspect of the present participle here--continued action or state in the present--we still have nothing in the grammar to tell us when they began believing: before, at the instant of (my position), or after regeneration. It would be really stretching the nature of the present participle (never mind the substantival use) to make the believing be after the regeneration simply from the present participle.

And I agree with this. That is the meaning of the present passive. I think the vast majority of conservative theologians would agree that it is God who regenerates. I certainly believe that.

Still all true. I agree.

I'm not sure how you get that the perfect passive verb is "far more important." Don't we believe in verbal inspiration? Every word is important. How is a verb more important than a noun?

Here is where we part company. You've explained the aspect of "believing" well enough, but I think you are reading too much into the tense of the substantive, and I've quoted several grammarians who appear to say so.

Can you come up with a grammarian giving the same weight of the tense that you do to a substantival participle? Any substantival participle anywhere in the NT? None of the grammars I have allow that.

Still, I have not articulated what I am thinking about the substantive participle. I don't think it is suggesting how the ones believing became believing, specifically. I think the perfect passive verb generally suggests why they are believing.

Let me employ this example: Let's replace the substantive participle with the generic "Christians." After all, regardless of one's theological persuasion, we all agree that Christians do believe in order to be saved and they are "believers." Doing so, we can restate the sentence this way:

"Christians have been born of God."

Of course, as most of the commentaries say, it is important what "the believing ones" are believing in--that Jesus is the Christ. I think "Christians" encapsulates that, at least for this example.

Now, taking the generic "Christians" in combination with the perfect passive verb (eliminating the discussion about the participle) it would be understood that the subject, "Christians," are that way because of God's past work, would it not?

This is what I'm getting at. The passive nature of the verb is, I think, the most important aspect to this verse. It shows God's work in the past--lasting into the present. The plain reading, then should understand that "the ones believing" (a simple fact) are believing due to God's birthing action in the past.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yes, everyone who believes in Christ has been born again. That is not evidence for regeneration before belief; it's saying the proof is in the pudding.

I am a believer in Christ; therefore, I have been born again/born of God.

I will not argue that if you are a believer in Christ, you have been born again.
So is the tribesman who leaves the ways and religion of his tribe in order to follow Christ and His people.
So is someone who have never heard of Christ but believes that there is Somebody more powerful than the sun, his ancestors, the river, the spirits of the forest, and in his heart longs to know who that is.
So was Abram and Sarai, who both were evidently idolaters until the living God called them out.
So is Simeon the old man who had been waiting all along for the redemption of Israel.
So is Job who had never met anyone who preached to him the Name of Christ, or who doesn't even know Jehovah's Name.

The real question is much like the big bang versus Creation.
The big bang can argue all they want that order came out of chaos, but the question is what caused the big bang and when ?

You are born again because you are a believer.
But when were you born again.
When you believed, before you believed, or after you believed.

Who caused your rebirth, or regeneration, or being "born again" ?
Was it the preacher ?
The preached message ?
The Bible ?
The Gospel ?
or the Spirit of God.

 

[The Archangel]

Besides the debate surrounding the grammar, shouldn't we also consider the obvious intent of the author? The fruit if believing in God is being born of God just as the fruit of loving the Father is loving his children. The proof is in the puddling. I personally think John would laugh at all the semantics and debates over this one phrase...or he'd be disgusted.

"The fruit of believing in God is being born of God..."

This cannot be. You are correct that this passage is discussing "fruits" and such. But, consider the following:

1 John 2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices (present active participle) righteousness has been born of him (perfect passive verb).

1 John 3:9 No one born (perfect passive participle) of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (perfect passive verb).

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves (present active participle) has been born of God (perfect passive verb) and knows God.

John's common usage is quite clear and comports perfectly with 1 John 5:1

Everyone who believes (present active participle) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born (perfect passive verb) of him

So, if you want to claim, as you did above, that "The fruit of believing in God is being born of God..." you must also claim (based on John's common usage) the following:

-The fruit of practicing righteousness is being born of God
-The fruit of loving is being born of God.
​

This, of course, would be theology turned upside-down.

In reality, the Perfect Passive verbs show is that practicing righteousness, loving, and believing are fruit of God's action of "borning" us again.

We do not "do" these things to get God to act upon us. Rather, we do these things because God has already acted upon us.

It simply does not say what you want it to say.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[TCGreek]

I'm one of those Calvinists who will gladly defer to what makes better sense.

As Paul demonstrates in Galatians 3:16 grammar sometimes is needed. But we need to be careful of trying to settle or confirm, as in this case, theological points along the lines of mere grammar.

Does 1 John 5:1 support regeneration preceding redemption? The Calvinist would like to think so. But such is not really the case.

John might simply be saying that the person who believes in Jesus gives evidence of being born of God, without any reference to when this being born of God actually took place.

 

[The Archangel]

I'm one of those Calvinists who will gladly defer to what makes better sense.

As Paul demonstrates in Galatians 3:16 grammar sometimes is needed. But we need to be careful of trying to settle or confirm, as in this case, theological points along the lines of mere grammar.

Does 1 John 5:1 support regeneration preceding redemption? The Calvinist would like to think so. But such is not really the case.

John might simply be saying that the person who believes in Jesus gives evidence of being born of God, without any reference to when this being born of God actually took place.

TC,

Good to hear from you again. I have been trying to say almost exactly what your conclusion above says. I think I haven't been articulating what I think and perhaps the title of this thread has placed a presupposition veil over what I am trying to say and what people are thinking I am saying.

The one thing I would clarify in your above statement (which you may disagree with) is this: The work of God results in our belief.

I am not arguing a specific point in time when this happened. I'm fine to let the passive say "sometime--non specific--in the past leading to the present."

As a Calvinist yourself and someone who has good facility with the languages, why do you disagree, exegetically?

Blessings to you!

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

TC,

Good to hear from you again. I have been trying to say almost exactly what your conclusion above says. I think I haven't been articulating what I think and perhaps the title of this thread has placed a presupposition veil over what I am trying to say and what people are thinking I am saying.

The one thing I would clarify in your above statement (which you may disagree with) is this: The work of God results in our belief.

I am not arguing a specific point in time when this happened. I'm fine to let the passive say "sometime--non specific--in the past leading to the present."

As a Calvinist yourself and someone who has good facility with the languages, why do you disagree, exegetically?

Blessings to you!

The Archangel

Now I'm not TCGreek, but from what I have read of his posts he seems to be saying that one can not devine with clarity anything more than this - the person who believes in Jesus gives evidence of being born of God. Thus it appears his view is that this specific passage in the Greek is not definitively showing neither order of salvation nor causation.

As to the specifics of why, I'll let him answer

 

[TCGreek]

TC,

Good to hear from you again. I have been trying to say almost exactly what your conclusion above says. I think I haven't been articulating what I think and perhaps the title of this thread has placed a presupposition veil over what I am trying to say and what people are thinking I am saying.

The one thing I would clarify in your above statement (which you may disagree with) is this: The work of God results in our belief.

I am not arguing a specific point in time when this happened. I'm fine to let the passive say "sometime--non specific--in the past leading to the present."

As a Calvinist yourself and someone who has good facility with the languages, why do you disagree, exegetically?

Blessings to you!

The Archangel

Archangel,

I do more blogging these days. Every now and then, I'll stop by. :thumbs:

I disagree because of what is actually going on in 1 John. A theme of 1 John is the fact that we can have confidence in our salvation, when so many are defecting.

When we speak of exegesis, we need to take the whole Letter into consideration along the lines of what is really going on, not just an isolation text.

To appeal to mere grammar without the support cast of overall context of the Letter is not the way to go.


1 John 5:1 simply means that one who believes in Jesus has been born of God, without reference to when this "born of God" took place.

Of course we can appeal to the perfect passive, but I see it more as a statement of fact, given the overall context of the Letter.

 

[Winman]

Paul states in Romans 8 that the differentiating factor between a regenerate person and an unregenerate person is whether the Holy Spirit dwells in that person. If the Holy Spirit didn't dwell in all born again children of God in the OT, then you've got a major problem with scripture.

I agree with you. This is why all the OT saints had to wait in paradise or Abraham's bosom. It was when Jesus ascended that he gave "gifts to men" which I personally believe means he gave the Holy Spirit to those OT saints he brought to heaven with him.

Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

Many scholars believe (and I agree) that verses 8 and 9 are speaking of Jesus taking those OT saints who were held captive in paradise or Abraham's bosom with him when he ascended to heaven. And I believe the "gifts" is speaking of those given through the Holy Spirit which he also gave to living believers starting at Pentacost.

Three times "paradise" is used in the NT, the first is in Luke and shows paradise was in the heart of the earth.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

We know paradise was in the heart of the earth because Jesus went down into the heart of the earth for three days. He spoke to the thief concerning where they both would be on the first day.

But after Jesus rose, paradise is shown to be in heaven. Paul spoke of himself being "caught up into paradise"

2 Cor 1:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

And later in Revelations we see paradise coming down out of heaven (Rev 2:7, Rev 22:1-7)

So, I believe Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to OT believers when he ascended to heaven and was glorified, just as he gave it to living believers starting at Pentacost.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

I realize that English may be your second language, but I have one major bone to pick with everything that you have been saying. It is simply this: the translators of nearly EVERY major, modern, translation disagrees with you.

1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes (present)that Jesus is the Christ has been (past)born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (ESV)

1 Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes (present)that Jesus is the Messiah has been (past) born of God,*(HCSB)

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


The fact is, John, that in the English, this is definitive: the belief is rendered subordinate to the past tense occurrence of having been born again. Those who believe, have been born again: not those who are born again, have believed.

These different translators, from nearly every major (not including paraphrases and non-literal translations) modern version, all place one's present belief as dependent upon the past action of God on the person: i.e. being born again. They did it for a reason. These different translators, who possibly represent the best in Biblical Greek scholarship, cannot simply be ignored.

Actually, English is my first language. I minored in English in college, have worked professionally as a book editor and proof reader, and have had a book and a couple of pamphlets published in English.

What the translators of the various English Bibles you mention did is this. They used the English noun "everyone" to represent the Greek substantival participle, since the Greek word for that is not a noun.

The word "believes" in the English is a verb, true, but what of it? You are not saying that the English should trump the Greek, are you? Would you care to oppose my Greek analysis with a Greek grammarian? Or is the English more inspired than the Greek to you?

Time for church, have to run.