First, I hope things are going well for you and yours brother. My apologies for not getting back but I'm sure you understand the fact of other pressing matters.
No to worry. Things are going well. I'm enjoying a "Snow day" with my wife and little girl.
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'.
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.
2. The present tense and active voice show the following: The present tense shows a current state of affairs and the active voice shows that they are themselves believing (e.g. no one else is believing for them).
I have no idea why you are talking like I am saying that "believing" is itself a juxtaposition showing a chronology. I have never said that "believing" itself implies anything.
Believing, being a participle--and a substantive at that--is stating a simple fact--there are ones who are currently believing. In that first clause there is no mention how they got that way. Grammatically, this substantive participle must be taken as a simple fact: There are ones who are currently believing that Jesus is the Christ.
The real issue of "how" comes in the verb "has been born." "Has been born" is perfect and passive--showing an action (being born again) done to the ones believing (e.g. not done by themselves) in a time which is past, the action of being born again having lasting effects into the present.
The verb qualifies the substantive participle because of the subject-verb relationship. And, because of this relationship, it shows cause--people are currently believing because God has "borned" them again.
It would be like saying this:
No tickets to the Super Bowl will be sold--all tickets will be given away. Therefore, during the broadcast, we can say "all the ones attending the Super Bowl have been given tickets." "All the ones attending" is a current state (no mention of how they got there--driving, flying, walking, etc.) and "have been given tickets" shows how they got into the stadium to attend the game--they were given tickets.
Another important note which I just alluded to is with regard to the surrounding context about the 'life' of the believer. The context of chapter 4 and the succeeding verses after 5:1, speaks not to an instant or moment but to the continuous actions of the one(s) 'born of God', illustrated in both loving, and believing. Thus it appears from the context this also establishes my premise that John is speaking to believers about identifying themselves and others as 'true' believers verses those who merely give intellectual assent. We also see John gives to his readers the exact purpose of his writing the epistle - so that those who believe might know they have eternal life/eternal salvation. - not having 'just' believed but this is for 'all' who have believed.
I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. To help me, please give some verses and allow me to investigate the context(s) you are referring to.
There is nothing particularly wrong with what you are saying here as I agree with what you have written - as is. I agree "The result of God's past action which carries on into the present is that people currently believe that Jesus is the Christ", but the difference we are having is where the emphasis lies in that statement. As shown I believe, and as you illustrated in your own statement above, that being 'born' is not 'resulting in' believing, but the fact that because of this past action these people are currently believing, not just now believing. Again context. To whom is John writing and for what purpose?
We know it is to believers. And we know it is so thost believers can know they 'have' eternal life by examining 'their life' - the continuation of a certain condition which is maintained due to being born of God, not resulting 'from' being born.
I don't know why you are misunderstanding me. It seems you think that I am saying "Because of God's past action...SHAZAM!!!...at the moment you are reading this you have become a believer." That's
not what I'm saying.
"The ones believing" is not referring to when they became believers it is simply stating that they are currently believers (assuming that they were believers before the moment of John's writing). I don't know why you don't get this--perhaps my explanation has not been clear enough.
Is it not true that in the Greek our faith or better 'believing' is often used in the continuous tense without emphasis on a fixed past point and a one time action, or completed action? And as such is it not used most often in the same manner as as in 1 John 5:1 as present tense or currently believing.
I have not done a specific study on the tenses of the verb believing. However, in this passage, "the ones believing" is not a verb. As stated before, it is a participle.
Now you're bringing presupposition into the text. Note that 'this rendering' is decidedly distinct from your previous one stated a few sentences prior. (though I'm sure you will assert they are pretty much the same)
See what I mean:
1. The result of God's past action which carries on into the present is that people currently believe that Jesus is the Christ
2. The ones God has "borned" in the past are now, as a result of God's action, believing
Your first one is closer to the Greek text and your second one is not.
The text does not warrent the incertion of 'resulting in' as it does not make any such allusions from the grammer nor the surrounding context, at least in my opinion, and it is through both we obtain the authur's intent.
No presupposition being red into the text. And, yes, the sentences are pretty much the same. I'll elaborate:
1. The result of God's past action which carries on into the present is that people currently believe that Jesus is the Christ
2. The ones God has "borned" in the past are now, as a result of God's action (His having borned them in the past), (result in their) believing
The "resulting," as you call it, is based (grammatically) in the verb "has been born" because it perfect and passive.
As I said, this is not just 'my view' (that the passage does not give a chronology nor does it state/allude to regeneration preceding faith) but is the view held by many reputable Greek scholars. Thus the truth is, this verse can be seen in two distinctly different ways depending on the where one presumes the emphasis lies in it's translation, and apparently due to the nature of the text and grammatical wording this passage either view 'can be' a valid way of interpreting passage. (though of course not to the other side)
Those Greek scholars are, I dare say, wrong. Not that I am a "scholar," but the perfect/passive verb is pretty clear. As far as the emphasis, the first sentence of the verse we are discussing places the verb at the end of the sentence--therefore placing the emphasis on God's past action of "borning" someone again (resulting in their believing).
Furthermore, every commentary I have looked at (and I looked at them way after I came to this conclusion) agrees with me. Even John R. W. Stott (not noted, to my knowledge, as 'reformed') says the grammatical implications are inescapable.
Therefore I am of the opinion that in order to properly know when regenerations happens, we must first state what it does and 'HOW' it does this by comparing it with scripture. This passage of itself isn't definitive enough to base or establish any doctrine upon much less a teaching on the chronological order of regeneration and faith.
Again, I think you are ignoring some pretty important grammatical information--like the fact that "has been born" is perfect and passive. For some reason you are hung up on "Believing." The most important thing in any sentence is the verb. Believing is not a verb, having been born is.
Deal properly with "has been born" and the grammar and John's intent becomes crystal clear. God's work of regeneration (borning us again) results in our faith. So, if we currently have faith, it is only because of God's work in regenerating us.
Blessings to you and I look forward to your response!
The Archangel
