Regeneration does precede Redemption

[Winman]

You showed facts not in evidence and did not deal with the text. This thread is dealing specifically with 1 John 5:1. You gave no comment about the text. Not to mention you always cherry-pick verses out of context and insist they mean something they do not and you have been shown repeatedly from the Greek how these verses simply cannot mean what you wish them to mean, yet you pay no attention.

The Archangel

It is not me cherry picking, it is you. This is the only verse you can possibly wrest to hopefully prove regeneration comes before faith. There are many verses that show faith comes before regeneration, I showed some, Skandelon showed some.

You are the very one guilty of doing what you accuse me of. Scripture should always be used to interpret scripture as Skandelon pointed out. That is what I was doing.

I know why John Piper struggled for years with this, because he found many verses that contradict Calvinism, and none that support it. Go back and watch your video again.

 

[Allan]

I'll post a little later tonight (maybe 11'ish for me - it is 9:30 right now) as I need to head off to work.

But I do have some responses (rubbing hands together and smiling mischieviously).

Also what Skandelon's wife said is what I was speaking to previously about how the passage, grammatically, can be, and is, seen two different ways because it isn't iron-clad.

 

[The Archangel]

It is not me cherry picking, it is you. This is the only verse you can possibly wrest to hopefully prove regeneration comes before faith. There are many verses that show faith comes before regeneration, I showed some, Skandelon showed some.

You are the very one guilty of doing what you accuse me of. Scripture should always be used to interpret scripture as Skandelon pointed out. That is what I was doing.

I know why John Piper struggled for years with this, because he found many verses that contradict Calvinism, and none that support it. Go back and watch your video again.

Again, you are grasping at straws not contributing anything of substance to this particular conversation on 1 John 5:1.

The Archangel

 

[Jerome]

You forgot the Blessings.

 

[Marcia]

So, you have a presuppositional argument, not an exegetical one?

The Greek text is what is at issue here. Do you have anything to offer concerning the Greek?

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. If you are a snow lover, I hope you are enjoying the snow in the DC area.

I wrote a response but because the wireless connection here sometimes just freezes up (I'm in a basement apt), I was unable to post it.

I know there are contrary views to this, so it's not like a proof-text for your claim.

No, I don't like the snow at all! It keeps me from going places, it's scary to drive in, and I've missed lots of church because of it - about 5 Sundays already, and will probably miss this Sunday as well.

 

[The Archangel]

I haven't had time to read through this whole thread, but my wife is a greek tutor and really has no dog in this fight...meaning she doesn't get into the doctrinal debates over Cal/Arm so I knew she would give me an objective answer. She said...

The grammar could imply regeneration precedes faith. Yet, the grammar can also imply that regeneration is a present and continuing reality for a believer. In this case, faith is the means for regeneration. In short, she said, its just like it is in English, in that it could be taken either way. It doesn't tell us enough to base any "iron clad" doctrine upon.

Please forgive me for not dealing with the verses you posted. I want to deal only with 1 John 5:1. The other verses will keep for the time being, as I hope to deal with them later.

I see what she is saying, but I don't think that is accurate for the following reasons:

If the participle were adverbial, you would win the argument. However, the participle is adjectival, by nature that it is articular and functions as a substantive (the articular participle must be adjectival). If it were adverbial, the participle could show concurrent or resultant action with the main verb.

In this sentence, faith simply cannot be the means of regeneration. The use of the passive negates that possibility. Further, the perfect tense doesn't support what you suggest about regeneration being "present and continuing." By definition, the perfect tense begins in the past and carries on into the present. It does not start in the present.

The only thing that can be considered "present and continuing" is the participle, because it is present tense. Now some have tried to pigeon-hole the present tense into declaring a continuing action. That is not proper (after all, John the Baptizer didn't continually baptize every minute of every day). The best way to describe it, then, is a "snapshot" of present time or an existing fact--there are (at the time of John's writing) persons who are believing that Jesus is the Christ. But, because this is a substantive, and because the perfect passive verb is the main verb, it is clear that John is telling us the ones believing are believing as a result of God's work.

It appear the author is simply attempting to communicate how you can know something that is unseen (spiritual birth) by observing that which is seen (good works). It is very unlikely that he had the whole "Cal/Arm regeneration precedes faith argument" in mind. He simply means to communicate, "the proof is in the pudding." "A good tree bears good fruit." End of story.

Make no mistake, I'm not basing any theology off of this one verse. I would agree with your "proof in the pudding" phrase and I think John does too. He is saying "if one is believing, it is because God has 'borned' them again." Faith is the proof of God's regenerating work.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I wrote a response but because the wireless connection here sometimes just freezes up (I'm in a basement apt), I was unable to post it.

I know there are contrary views to this, so it's not like a proof-text for your claim.

No, I don't like the snow at all! It keeps me from going places, it's scary to drive in, and I've missed lots of church because of it - about 5 Sundays already, and will probably miss this Sunday as well.

I'd like to see your response. Perhaps you'll have the chance to reconstruct it.

Yes, I'm sure there are contrary views, but the grammar is plain.

I like the snow, but I've had too much. News 4 in DC is predicting 12-18 inches and I am loathing cleaning that mess up! Since we live out in Western Maryland, we have the potential (some have said) for 30 inches. Typically, after Christmas and New Year's, I want 70 degrees and sunny. Oh well.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

You forgot the Blessings.

What makes you think they're required?

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

So, how do you reconcile these verses?

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins

WE ARE RAISED WITH HIM THROUGH FAITH. Clearly faith is the mean's through which we are raised to life.

But, if you look at the entire passage the main verb is in v. 11--circumcised. Circumcised is aorist and passive--meaning, again, that we did not do this to ourselves.

V. 12 begins "having been baptized" and that is one aspect of how the circumcision happened and "having been baptized" is an aorist passive participle.

"Raised" is a compound word, having the συν preposition saying we have been raised together with Christ (presumably at His resurrection, long before this letter was written and long before the Gospel was preached in Colossian community). Also, this verb is aorist passive.

Now, of course δια plus the genitive "faith" does give us means. That faith is specific--it is faith in the powerful working of God.

This is easily reconciled because of all the passives and the συν preposition with the verb "raised." It cannot be that God did all of these things (being true to the passive) because we first demonstrated faith. The aorist negates that possibility.

Especially, the "being raised together with Christ" must happen before our faith is kindled in us, especially today.

Now, I'm sure people would like to argue a "foreseen faith" but we all know that "foreknew" can't mean that and that isn't even in this passage.

John 20:31
But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.

Scripture is written so that you may believe and by believing we may have LIFE! Life comes through faith.

This is much simpler. There are two ἵνα clauses showing why these are written--1. So that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. And because of that 2. so that you may have life in His name.

We see the subjunctive mood (this is where we get the "may"). It is saying what might happen.

But, Calvinists do not deny the necessity of believing. In fact, a persons believing or not believing, is not ultimately known to us. So, we exhort and implore. We gladly affirm that we must believe. The difference is that the Calvinist rightly believes that belief is a response to God's initiating work.

Your quoting of this verse shows that you believe otherwise. But, this verse does not argue for the position you hold. Calvinists believe we'll have life in Jesus' name (if we believe). You want to see a cause of having life is believing, but it isn't there. The final clause is literally "and believing you may have life in His name. Grammatically there is no causative link.

John 6:40
This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day."

Eternal life begins at regeneration and its clear from this text life come to those who first believe.

Again, there is no causation in the text. Literally the clause says "and believing in Him might have eternal life." Again, the subjunctive. Calvinists don't deny that we must look (another participle) on Christ and believe on Christ.

Eternal life is the end of believing on Christ, not the beginning. Regeneration is the beginning.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Marcia]

I'd like to see your response. Perhaps you'll have the chance to reconstruct it.

Yes, I'm sure there are contrary views, but the grammar is plain.

I like the snow, but I've had too much. News 4 in DC is predicting 12-18 inches and I am loathing cleaning that mess up! Since we live out in Western Maryland, we have the potential (some have said) for 30 inches. Typically, after Christmas and New Year's, I want 70 degrees and sunny. Oh well.

Blessings,

The Archangel

The grammar is plain in that it can be taken two ways. :tongue3: If the grammar were that clear that it supports your view, there would not be contrary views.

This was explained in a previous post, so I don't need to do it.

I dread the snow this weekend - yet again. Except for Tuesday, all the snowfalls have been on Friday and/or Saturdays, making me miss church on Sunday. I missed it last Sunday and am sure I will miss this Sunday, though my church never has cancelled a service due to weather. I'll be stuck here a least 3 or 4 days after the snow. I wondered where you were in MD - yep, you probably will get more than us.

 

[The Archangel]

Since you are giving me grief over this, I'll post a response.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

To whom does God give the "power" to become the sons of God? To those who receive Christ and believe on his name.

"Power is not the proper definition of ἐξουσία. This word is better translated as "commission" or "right." "To become," because of John's typical usages, is better understood as the change from being lost to being saved.

No Calvinist will dispute that we must believe in order to be saved. This is something we've explained to you and yet you refuse to acknowledge that and even dare to tell us what we actually believe, as if you know our minds.

So regeneration follows faith. This is clearly shown in Ephesians 1:13.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Paul said a man cannot believe on Christ unless he has heard of him.

Yet again an example of your stolid opposition. You have been shown repeatedly that the KJV, which you quote above, is not accurate in its translation. It is better translated:

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

The simple sentence is this: "in whom you were sealed." You were sealed is passive, so it's nothing we have done. Further, if you were to read v. 11 where "we have obtained an inheritance" you'd see that the obtaining the inheritance is also passive.

In the Greek there is no "after that..."

The simple sentence and the and the qualifying participles are as follows:

Simple: In whom [Christ] you were sealed.

With what were we sealed?

-The promised Holy Spirit
​

Why were "you" sealed?

-Having heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)
​

-Having believed in Him
​

Because the participles are aorist and the main verb is aorist, there is no progressive action. The aorist tense is a simple snapshot of time in the past. So, at some time in the past, the recipients of Paul's letter heard the word of truth and believed in Christ and were sealed. But, grammatically, there is no cause and effect.

Now, I know you see cause and effect. Use a better translation of the Bible and some of your confusion might go by the wayside.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

People are not walking around hating God and then are suddenly regenerated to have a desire to hear the word of God and then enabled to believe it.

This verse speaks to nothing you have posted. These are a series of rhetorical questions Paul poses to his readers with the implied answer of "they won't."

Again, we have told you many times that we Calvinists believe that one must believe in the Gospel in order to be saved. Yet you persist in your obtuse opposition to what we plainly tell you.

The scriptures ALWAYS teach that a man hears the word of God, believes it, and then receives the Holy Spirit. ALWAYS.

Mmmm, not so much. Especially not based on Romans 10:14.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Here was Paul (who I am sure knew Greek better than you), asking disciples if they had received the Holy Ghost "since" they believed.

It is not me that doesn't have a clue.

Perhaps this is the most egregious example of your hermeneutical incompetence. If you would do something other than proof-text, you would see Paul is not talking to Christian disciples, he is talking to disciples of John the Baptist. In other words, these people he was talking to were not Christians (although they would soon become Christians).

After they became Christians, they received the outward sign of the Holy Spirit--speaking in tongues. Paul expected believers to receive the outward sign of the Holy Spirit after their conversion. Nothing in this passage speaks to causation.

Calvinists say that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit, but we do not say that the unsaved have the Holy Spirit--again, something you have been told time and time again.

I'm quite comfortable that Paul knew much more Greek than I do and I'm also comfortable that he used it better than I ever could. However, for you to compare my Greek skills to Paul's in a derogatory manner while you yourself have, ostensibly, no Greek skills is quite puerile on your part.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

The grammar is plain in that it can be taken two ways. :tongue3: If the grammar were that clear that it supports your view, there would not be contrary views.

This was explained in a previous post, so I don't need to do it.

You'll have to forgive me for calling this a cop-out. It is all together possible that those who take the alternate view from mine go against the grammar (especially, because I've never read a grammarian or a commentator who disagrees with me on this verse).

I dread the snow this weekend - yet again. Except for Tuesday, all the snowfalls have been on Friday and/or Saturdays, making me miss church on Sunday. I missed it last Sunday and am sure I will miss this Sunday, though my church never has cancelled a service due to weather. I'll be stuck here a least 3 or 4 days after the snow. I wondered where you were in MD - yep, you probably will get more than us.

I live somewhere in Washington County, Maryland. I'm afraid we'll get walloped. I'm afraid our Sunday service is in jeopardy...and a very-looked-forward-to meeting on Saturday. Oh well. The skiers (of which I am not one) will love it.

If I may ask, what church in DC do you go to?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[John of Japan]

Analysis of 1 John 5v1​

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
paV o pisteuwn oti ihsouV estin o cristoV ek tou qeou gegennhtai kai paV o agapwn ton gennhsanta agapa kai ton gegennhmenon ex autou

I have been asked by a participant on this thread to weigh in here, since I am a Greek teacher and a translator. So I’ll analyze this verse, but before doing so I want to point out that I almost never participate in the Cal/Arm discussions on the BB. So I’m weighing as a favor to a friend, and don’t plan to spend much time here, though I’ll answer any questions about my Greek analysis.

First of all, consider the substantival use of the participle (using the participle as a noun) for “to believe”, o pisteuwn. It is best to just think of this as a noun, since it is after all the subject of the sentence. Brooks and Winbury say, “The participle, like an adjective, may be used in the place of a noun or other substantive. The participle itself then functions as a noun” (Syntax of NT Greek, p. 130). Daniel Wallace doesn’t mention this particular verse, but comments on a similar structure: “The aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it. Thus, for example, o baptizwn in Mark 1:4 does not mean ‘the one who continually baptizes” but simply ‘the baptizer.’ Indeed, it cannot mean this in Mark 6:14, for otherwise John would be baptizing without a head” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 620—love that humor!).

I won’t take time to explain the current debate in Greek circles on verbal aspect and aktionsart, which is pretty complicated (and my son is much more up on that than I am). But I do believe that here, the tense and verbal aspect of the present participle (Is the action continuative? Is it present?) have little play. If John were a 21st century American writing in English when he wrote 1 John, he would have simply said, “Every believer…,” since there is no Greek noun meaning simply “believer.” You have to use the participle for “to believe” in koine Greek.

To relate this to the current discussion, I don’t see how 1 John has anything to do with the order of salvation. I think John would be surprised to read this thread! He was simply saying, “Hey, if someone is a believer in Jesus as the Christ, they’ve been born again!” And of course it is God Who did it, but looking at the grammar, there is nothing in this verse that will prove that regeneration comes before faith.

I don’t think there is a need here for me to comment on the verb tenses for “born again.” To me they are irrelevant to the argument on the order of salvation once the substantival use of the participle is understood—the participle as noun.

Oh, and by the way, you guys with your snow talk are all wimps. We’ve had 14 feet so far this winter in Asahikawa! (Think a Japanese version of Siberia.) Nothing to it! :tongue3:

God bless.

 

[Allan]

First, I want to appologize for taking so long to post this. My night has been exceedingly crazy and very busy.

No to worry. Things are going well. I'm enjoying a "Snow day" with my wife and little girl.

Sweeeet!

Also, I asked in my previous post regarding 'why' you think the participle (believing) does not refer or allude to as present and continous, or on going action, and was still curious as to your answer on this?

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.

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).

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).

Exactly, yet according to the grammer we see they are 'already' in a state of belief, illistrating my point about their believing has a past inherent to it's meaning of which is a present reality now.

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.

I am not saying that either. I am saying you are placing the juxtaposition of 'being born' against 'believing', to try to illistrate chronology. However I do not believe that is the purpose of the perfect tense in this case. While I agreee it 'can' show chronology at times, this I believe, is not one of them.
It is not a 'this-then-that' passage but is a snapshot of the reality of the 'current condition'of the noun in question.

Just a minor point of clarification on 'continuing in'. The implication of condition the noun is currently in illistrates 1. they are 'already' believing showing a past point of action and also will in fact continue.

IOW - It is not that being born 'resulted' in their their believing but that the state of noun's current condition (beleiving) is a fact due to or because of their having been born.

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.

Agreed - it forms the state or condition of the noun.

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.

No agruement here either. To believe does not cause one to be regenerate, we believe God and it is His will to regenerate/save us. Us believing does not obligate God to do anything, but God obligates Himself in that He desires and decreed to save those of faith. Thus faith is not the cause of our regeneration, faith is our obedient responce to the gospel truth. Regeneration is not God responding to mans demand but God reaching down to help the man crying out for mercy because He has believed the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is His choice to save and His choice to regenerate, man is passive in action of regeneration.

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.

Again, I agree with what is stated above - but your emphasis here is on causation of believing, of which I don't see the Greek grammer insinuating . I see the emphasis of the grammer speaking of the subject-verb relationship regarding the nouns 'current state of being' due to verb - not causation but to the noun's current condition.

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.

This can be seen two ways. Since you are writing the sentence you can state your intent but another easily forseeable perspective regarding your sentense is that it isn't showing 'how' they got in but 'why' they were currently there.

Getting the tickets did not result in bringing them tothe Super Bowl.
However their current attendance at the Super Bowl is the result of getting the tickets.

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.

Isn't it though? You are stating that being born from God is the causation of/for believing. Thus because of God's past action ...SHAZAM!!!...at that moment you become a believer. Otherwise do you believe man can be regenerate for long periods of time?
I must be missing something in what you are saying here.

"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.

Then why are you arguing that being born of God is the causation of believing or as the OP states - Regeneration Does precede redemption (salvation).

It may be that you are not 'technically' makeing the argument that believing is not refering to the person became a believers, however this is the end result of your argument regarding being born as the causation of their believing.

I know you don't believe in being saved apart from faith nor do you believe that regeneration is by God through faith. Thus there is only one logical place where faith can be placed in your view // regeneration - faith - redemption. Therefore being born of God resulted in their believing and thus in their being saved/redemption.

The "resulting," as you call it, is based (grammatically) in the verb "has been born" because it perfect and passive.

Acatully, I'm using your words brother. But in any case, I disagree with you regarding the grammer that being born does not mean 'resulting in' their believing.

Those Greek scholars are, I dare say, wrong. Not that I am a "scholar," but the perfect/passive verb is pretty clear.

That is a bit of a tall order even for you brother. Those scholars are such because their understanding and skill far excedes both your, mine and maybe another one or two others wrapped up all together on here. It is apparently not as clear as you apparently think it is.

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).

Again I agree and do not dispute that the reason they are currently still the believing ones is due to being born again. It is the very doctrine of the preservation of the saints.

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.

Uh..mmm... I have looked at many a commentary since yesterday evening, and the only ones I can find that speak to your conclusion are all reformed. And yes, John R. W. Scott is VERY reformed (conservitive reformed as he calls himself) and is a quite the reformed authur of many books.

But I can also find commentarries that do not agree with your conclusions so I'm wondering.. are all your commentaries on the Greek usage reformed?

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.

I think I 'over' simplified my point and it confused you about my argument. However being perfect passive does nothing to change my argument.

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.

See, this is reading a just a bit more into the text that it is allowing for.

 

[RAdam]

When Ephesians 1:13 says you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, it did not mean you were just then given the Holy Spirit. The word you see rendered "sealed" is the greek word sphragizo. Sphragizo means to set one's seal to for these reasons: to mark a person or a thing or to confirm authenicate or place beyond doubt something.

It is used in the following ways:

John 3:33 - "He that receiveth this testimony hath set to his seal that God is true."

John 6:27 - "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." Obviously it here means certified or authenticated.

2 Cor. 1:22 - "Who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Pretty much a parallel of Ephesians 1:13.

This word comes from the root word sphragis which was used to describe was circumcision was to Moses in Romans 4:11 - a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised. A seal of something that already was, a certificate or authentication of a present reality.

Your belief is a seal, a certificate, something that authenticates to you that you are indeed a child of God. That's exactly what the scriptures say elsewhere. 3 times in John it says, "whosoever believeth hath everlasting life." It didn't say whosoever will believe shall receive, it says those that believe already have it. Belief cannot be both the root cause of gaining everlasting life and the evidence, or authenticating certificate, of it. You had everlasting life before you believed, but when you believed you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance.

 

[Allan]

Your belief is a seal, a certificate, something that authenticates to you that you are indeed a child of God. That's exactly what the scriptures say elsewhere. 3 times in John it says, "whosoever believeth hath everlasting life." It didn't say whosoever will believe shall receive, it says those that believe already have it. Belief cannot be both the root cause of gaining everlasting life and the evidence, or authenticating certificate, of it. You had everlasting life before you believed, but when you believed you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance.

Wow.. talk about ripping the scriptures apart. The above has no basis from/in scripture neither in context nor the original languages.


Primarily I am refering to your specific reference in that we are eternally saved before we believe.
This renedering is not even 'close' to scriptures intent/meaning.

 

[Allan]

Analysis of 1 John 5v1​

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
paV o pisteuwn oti ihsouV estin o cristoV ek tou qeou gegennhtai kai paV o agapwn ton gennhsanta agapa kai ton gegennhmenon ex autou

I have been asked by a participant on this thread to weigh in here, since I am a Greek teacher and a translator. So I’ll analyze this verse, but before doing so I want to point out that I almost never participate in the Cal/Arm discussions on the BB. So I’m weighing as a favor to a friend, and don’t plan to spend much time here, though I’ll answer any questions about my Greek analysis.

First of all, consider the substantival use of the participle (using the participle as a noun) for “to believe”, o pisteuwn. It is best to just think of this as a noun, since it is after all the subject of the sentence. Brooks and Winbury say, “The participle, like an adjective, may be used in the place of a noun or other substantive. The participle itself then functions as a noun” (Syntax of NT Greek, p. 130). Daniel Wallace doesn’t mention this particular verse, but comments on a similar structure: “The aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it. Thus, for example, o baptizwn in Mark 1:4 does not mean ‘the one who continually baptizes” but simply ‘the baptizer.’ Indeed, it cannot mean this in Mark 6:14, for otherwise John would be baptizing without a head” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 620—love that humor!).

I won’t take time to explain the current debate in Greek circles on verbal aspect and aktionsart, which is pretty complicated (and my son is much more up on that than I am). But I do believe that here, the tense and verbal aspect of the present participle (Is the action continuative? Is it present?) have little play. If John were a 21st century American writing in English when he wrote 1 John, he would have simply said, “Every believer…,” since there is no Greek noun meaning simply “believer.” You have to use the participle for “to believe” in koine Greek.

To relate this to the current discussion, I don’t see how 1 John has anything to do with the order of salvation. I think John would be surprised to read this thread! He was simply saying, “Hey, if someone is a believer in Jesus as the Christ, they’ve been born again!” And of course it is God Who did it, but looking at the grammar, there is nothing in this verse that will prove that regeneration comes before faith.

I don’t think there is a need here for me to comment on the verb tenses for “born again.” To me they are irrelevant to the argument on the order of salvation once the substantival use of the participle is understood—the participle as noun.

Oh, and by the way, you guys with your snow talk are all wimps. We’ve had 14 feet so far this winter in Asahikawa! (Think a Japanese version of Siberia.) Nothing to it! :tongue3:

God bless.

Wow, I learned something new.
It appears I might possibly be over analyzing the text.

It comes out to what I am saying just not as intricate as I was making it
Oops.

 

[RAdam]

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
Verily, verilly I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

What do those verses state? The believer is presently in a born again state and presently possesses everlasting life. Their belief is a seal, a certificate, evidence of the fact that God has born them from above and given unto them everlasting life. Thus does Paul say after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. You won't find a single text that will tell you that regeneration is brought about by belief, but rather the reverse is true, belief is the result and evidence of regeneration.

 

[Allan]

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
Verily, verilly I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

What do those verses state? The believer is presently in a born again state and presently possesses everlasting life. Their belief is a seal, a certificate, evidence of the fact that God has born them from above and given unto them everlasting life. Thus does Paul say after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. You won't find a single text that will tell you that regeneration is brought about by belief, but rather the reverse is true, belief is the result and evidence of regeneration.

If you would like to start another thread on people having eternal life prior to/before believing - then go right ahead. However this thread isn't dealing with such nor is it the view of Archangel, the originator of the thread, who is arguing for regeneration preceding redemption/eternal life.

 

[webdog]

Analysis of 1 John 5v1​

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
paV o pisteuwn oti ihsouV estin o cristoV ek tou qeou gegennhtai kai paV o agapwn ton gennhsanta agapa kai ton gegennhmenon ex autou

I have been asked by a participant on this thread to weigh in here, since I am a Greek teacher and a translator. So I’ll analyze this verse, but before doing so I want to point out that I almost never participate in the Cal/Arm discussions on the BB. So I’m weighing as a favor to a friend, and don’t plan to spend much time here, though I’ll answer any questions about my Greek analysis.

First of all, consider the substantival use of the participle (using the participle as a noun) for “to believe”, o pisteuwn. It is best to just think of this as a noun, since it is after all the subject of the sentence. Brooks and Winbury say, “The participle, like an adjective, may be used in the place of a noun or other substantive. The participle itself then functions as a noun” (Syntax of NT Greek, p. 130). Daniel Wallace doesn’t mention this particular verse, but comments on a similar structure: “The aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it. Thus, for example, o baptizwn in Mark 1:4 does not mean ‘the one who continually baptizes” but simply ‘the baptizer.’ Indeed, it cannot mean this in Mark 6:14, for otherwise John would be baptizing without a head” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 620—love that humor!).

I won’t take time to explain the current debate in Greek circles on verbal aspect and aktionsart, which is pretty complicated (and my son is much more up on that than I am). But I do believe that here, the tense and verbal aspect of the present participle (Is the action continuative? Is it present?) have little play. If John were a 21st century American writing in English when he wrote 1 John, he would have simply said, “Every believer…,” since there is no Greek noun meaning simply “believer.” You have to use the participle for “to believe” in koine Greek.

To relate this to the current discussion, I don’t see how 1 John has anything to do with the order of salvation. I think John would be surprised to read this thread! He was simply saying, “Hey, if someone is a believer in Jesus as the Christ, they’ve been born again!” And of course it is God Who did it, but looking at the grammar, there is nothing in this verse that will prove that regeneration comes before faith.

I don’t think there is a need here for me to comment on the verb tenses for “born again.” To me they are irrelevant to the argument on the order of salvation once the substantival use of the participle is understood—the participle as noun.

Oh, and by the way, you guys with your snow talk are all wimps. We’ve had 14 feet so far this winter in Asahikawa! (Think a Japanese version of Siberia.) Nothing to it! :tongue3:

God bless.

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: