Regeneration does precede Redemption

[Havensdad]

O.K.: Simple question. Please give yes or no answers.

Can a person be believing, presently, without "having been" born again in the past (regardless how "past" it was)?

 

[webdog]

O.K.: Simple question. Please give yes or no answers.

Can a person be believing, presently, without "having been" born again in the past (regardless how "past" it was)?

No, if the person is believing today, they have been born again today or prior. Who has argued the other view here

 

[Winman]

O.K.: Simple question. Please give yes or no answers.

Can a person be believing, presently, without "having been" born again in the past (regardless how "past" it was)?

Believing precedes being born again, although it is basically an instantaneous act.

Even Matthew Henry (a Calvinist) says this.

[2.] The true Christian’s dignity and privilege are twofold:—

First, The privilege of adoption, which takes them into the number of God’s children: To them gave he power to become the sons of God. Hitherto, the adoption pertained to the Jews only (Israel is my son, my first-born); but now, by faith in Christ, Gentiles are the children of God, Gal. 3:26. They have power, exousian—authority; for no man taketh this power to himself, but he who is authorized by the gospel charter. To them gave he a right; to them gave he this pre-eminence. This power have all the saints. Note, 1. It is the unspeakable privilege of all good Christians, that they are become the children of God. They were by nature children of wrath, children of this world. If they be the children of God, they become so, are made so Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani—Persons are not born Christians, but made such.—Tertullian. Behold what manner of love is this, 1 Jn. 3:1. God calls them his children, they call him Father, and are entitled to all the privileges of children, those of their way and those of their home. 2. The privilege of adoption is entirely owing to Jesus Christ; he gave this power to them that believe on his name. God is his Father, and so ours; and it is by virtue of our espousals to him, and union with him, that we stand related to God as a Father. It was in Christ that we were predestinated to the adoption; from him we receive both the character and the Spirit of adoption, and he is the first-born among many brethren. The Son of God became a Son of man, that the sons and daughters of men might become the sons and daughters of God Almighty.

Secondly, The privilege of regeneration (v. 13): Which were born. Note, All the children of God are born again; all that are adopted are regenerated. This real change evermore attends that relative one. Wherever God confers the dignity of children, he creates the nature and disposition of children. Men cannot do so when they adopt. Now here we have an account of the original of this new birth. 1. Negatively. (1.) It is not propagated by natural generation from our parents. It is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of corruptible seed, 1 Pt. 1:23. Man is called flesh and blood, because thence he has his original: but we do not become the children of God as we become the children of our natural parents. Note, Grace does not run in the blood, as corruption does. Man polluted begat a son in his own likeness (Gen. 5:3); but man sanctified and renewed does not beget a son in that likeness. The Jews gloried much in their parentage, and the noble blood that ran in their veins: We are Abraham’s seed; and therefore to them pertained the adoption because they were born of that blood; but this New-Testament adoption is not founded in any such natural relation. (2.) It is not produced by the natural power of our own will. As it is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, so neither is it of the will of man, which labours under a moral impotency of determining itself to that which is good; so that the principles of the divine life are not of our own planting, it is the grace of God that makes us willing to be his. Nor can human laws or writings prevail to sanctify and regenerate a soul; if they could, the new birth would be by the will of man. But, 2. Positively: it is of God. This new birth is owing to the word of God as the means (1 Pt. 1:23), and to the Spirit of God as the great and sole author. True believers are born of God, 1 Jn. 3:9; 5:1. And this is necessary to their adoption; for we cannot expect the love of God if we have not something of his likeness, nor claim the privileges of adoption if we be not under the power of regeneration.

Most Calvinists believe that the elect are chosen outside of Christ and given to him. Henry rightly believed that a person can only be elected and predestined "in Christ".

Henry rightly believed that a person must first believe before they are adopted, which he explains as regeneration further below.

He also rightly believes that the new birth is owing to the word of God. A person first hears the word of God, faith then comes by hearing the word of God. It is after hearing the word of God and believing that a person is born again and regenerated.

 

[Havensdad]

Believing precedes being born again, although it is basically an instantaneous act.

So then, you deny scripture? You believe that "everyone who believes" has NOT necessarily been born again, like the scriptures state? The scriptures state plainly that if you believe, you HAVE been born again.

even Matthew Henry (a Calvinist) says this.

If you do not believe regeneration precedes faith, then you cannot be a true Calvinist.

BTW, pointing to a person who believes in a certain viewpoint, who denies certain aspects of that belief, to bolster your case, is a logical fallacy.

Most Calvinists believe that the elect are chosen outside of Christ and given to him. Henry rightly believed that a person can only be elected and predestined "in Christ".

God's sovereignty comes first. Then His regeneration (through the word as means, and the imparting of the Spirit, I will agree). Then our belief. That is what scripture says. I do not care what Matthew Henry says.

Henry rightly believed that a person must first believe before they are adopted, which he explains as regeneration further below.

Not what scripture says...

Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

He also rightly believes that the new birth is owing to the word of God. A person first hears the word of God, faith then comes by hearing the word of God. It is after hearing the word of God and believing that a person is born again and regenerated.

I do not disagree with the Word of God as the means. However, Acts 13 clearly shows the order as Predestined> regenerated by the word>believed. When you hear the word preached, if you are God's elect (and it is according to God's timing), you are quickened, and believe because of this.

 

[Marcia]

Allan,

But, friend, you must also admit that there are many Greek scholars that agree with my position as well.

Who are they?

 

[Marcia]

I would just like to point out Marcia, that the translators of MOST modern Bible versions, would disagree with JoJ. Nearly all of them render the phrase in such a way, that it would have regeneration preceding faith/belief. If all those who believe, "have been" (in the past, even if it was one second ago) born again/regenerated, this automatically excludes the possibility that one believes, and is then regenerated. Why? Because this statement of scripture would then be false, for their would necessarily be people who believed, yet were not born again.

Because this is the case, with most modern translators disagreeing with JoJ, as well as my own, very limited knowledge of the Greek language (4th semester, currently...), I have to say that regeneration necessarily precedes faith. Regardless of JoJ's opinion regarding aspect, both Mounce's and Hildebrandts Grammars, say that the Perfect tense refers to an action completed in the past, with an ongoing result. Most translators of MV's, such as the HCSB, ESV, etc., recognize this as referring to the "belief" (or believing) which is in the present tense. As such, they render it:

Everyone who believes (at any given present moment) that Jesus is the Christ has been born(before that given present moment) of God

This verse does not say that regeneration precedes faith, no matter how many times you say it does.

That is not the point of the passage at all! It is talking about who is a believer in Christ, and that we all have been born again. Yes, I am a believer, I believed and I have been born again.

You are really reading into it.

I would like to see the names of respected Greek scholars who say this passage proves regeneration precedes faith.

 

[The Archangel]

This verse does not say that regeneration precedes faith, no matter how many times you say it does.

That is not the point of the passage at all! It is talking about who is a believer in Christ, and that we all have been born again. Yes, I am a believer, I believed and I have been born again.

You are really reading into it.

I would like to see the names of respected Greek scholars who say this passage proves regeneration precedes faith.

Marcia!

Here comes more snow! BOoooooooo!

Anyway, Havensdad is right, that is what the verse says.

See: Dr. John Piper; Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner; John R. W. Stott.

Schreiner's Greek skills are legendary. Piper's Greek skills are also well-known.

One of the issues I haven't addressed with John of Japan is his treatment of the substantive participle. While it does act as a subject (and, therefore, the verbal aspects are less), it does not forfeit it's verbal qualities. So the subject(s) is/are doing something, that is, believing.

Blessings (and have as much fun as possible in the snow).

The Archangel

 

[Havensdad]

This verse does not say that regeneration precedes faith, no matter how many times you say it does.

That is not the point of the passage at all! It is talking about who is a believer in Christ, and that we all have been born again. Yes, I am a believer, I believed and I have been born again.

You are really reading into it.

I would like to see the names of respected Greek scholars who say this passage proves regeneration precedes faith.

Marcia,

So are you denying that everyone who believes, HAS been born again? The scripture plainly states that every single person who is presently believing, has already been born again.

FYI: a similar construction is used by John to denote several things, which all clearly proceed from regeneration (not cause it): righteousness, love of the brothers, etc.

 

[Havensdad]

Marcia!

Here comes more snow! BOoooooooo!

Anyway, Havensdad is right, that is what the verse says.

See: Dr. John Piper; Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner; John R. W. Stott.

Schreiner's Greek skills are legendary. Piper's Greek skills are also well-known.

One of the issues I haven't addressed with John of Japan is his treatment of the substantive participle. While it does act as a subject (and, therefore, the verbal aspects are less), it does not forfeit it's verbal qualities. So the subject(s) is/are doing something, that is, believing.

Blessings (and have as much fun as possible in the snow).

The Archangel

This is a good point, and is also pointed out by no less than Daniel Wallace himself...

http://bible.org/article/participle

 

[Marcia]

Marcia!

Here comes more snow! BOoooooooo!

Anyway, Havensdad is right, that is what the verse says.

See: Dr. John Piper; Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner; John R. W. Stott.

Schreiner's Greek skills are legendary. Piper's Greek skills are also well-known.

One of the issues I haven't addressed with John of Japan is his treatment of the substantive participle. While it does act as a subject (and, therefore, the verbal aspects are less), it does not forfeit it's verbal qualities. So the subject(s) is/are doing something, that is, believing.

Blessings (and have as much fun as possible in the snow).

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.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,

So are you denying that everyone who believes, HAS been born again? The scripture plainly states that every single person who is presently believing, has already been born again.

FYI: a similar construction is used by John to denote several things, which all clearly proceed from regeneration (not cause it): righteousness, love of the brothers, etc.

I have been born again, yes, and I am a believer. I was a believer and born again at the same time. I was definitely not born again before I believed. I was aware of the Holy Spirit after I believed.

I am sorry, I totally disagree with the way you reading into this.

 

[John of Japan]

O.K.: Simple question. Please give yes or no answers.

Can a person be believing, presently, without "having been" born again in the past (regardless how "past" it was)?

I will answer this when you show me you understand my position by answering my question: What is the Greek word for "believer"?

 

[John of Japan]

This is a good point, and is also pointed out by no less than Daniel Wallace himself...

http://bible.org/article/participle

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")!"

 

[Havensdad]

I have been born again, yes, and I am a believer. I was a believer and born again at the same time. I was definitely not born again before I believed. I was aware of the Holy Spirit after I believed.

I am sorry, I totally disagree with the way you reading into this.

I am not "reading into" anything. I am simply reading it, exactly how it is written, without changing it, or allowing for error. It says every person who believes has been born again. I believe that. Not one single person, for one millisecond, ever, believe without being born again.

Just like it says.

 

[Cypress]

I am not "reading into" anything. I am simply reading it, exactly how it is written, without changing it, or allowing for error. It says every person who believes has been born again. I believe that. Not one single person, for one millisecond, ever, believe without being born again.

Just like it says.

And not one single person, for one millisecond , ever, was born again without believing.

 

[Havensdad]

I asked for the names of respected Greek scholars. Piper is not known as a Greek scholar.

Huh? Piper TAUGHT Greek for 6 years, at the Graduate level. He earned a Doctoral Degree in New Testament studies from the University of Munich (at the time, one of the premier places of study). He is very much a "Greek Scholar."

I just looked up Schreiner and he's known as a "Pauline scholar."

Marcia, please you are killing me. Are you aware of Schreiners credentials? Do you understand the level of mastery in Biblical Greek one has to have, to do a Ph.D. in New Testament studies?

Look at the list of his scholarly publications. I am pretty sure the list is longer than JoJ (no offense, John)...

http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/thomas-schreiner/

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.

Considering what some of the authors of the Greek Grammars used in Seminaries today believe, you are going to pound on Stotts annihilationism?

Stott is a very renowned scholar, very well versed in the Greek language.

 

[Havensdad]

And not one single person, for one millisecond , ever, was born again without believing.

1 John 5:1 precludes that possibility. If you believe, then you HAVE (already) been born again.

 

[Marcia]

Huh? Piper TAUGHT Greek for 6 years, at the Graduate level. He earned a Doctoral Degree in New Testament studies from the University of Munich (at the time, one of the premier places of study). He is very much a "Greek Scholar."



Marcia, please you are killing me. Are you aware of Schreiners credentials? Do you understand the level of mastery in Biblical Greek one has to have, to do a Ph.D. in New Testament studies?

Look at the list of his scholarly publications. I am pretty sure the list is longer than JoJ (no offense, John)...

http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/thomas-schreiner/




Considering what some of the authors of the Greek Grammars used in Seminaries today believe, you are going to pound on Stotts annihilationism?

Stott is a very renowned scholar, very well versed in the Greek language.

I am not saying they don't know Greek. I am asking if they are recognized as Greek scholars? That's a very specific field.

Also, just to clarify, do they specifically say that 1 John 5:1 teaches that regeneration precedes belief in Christ? I'm sure Piper does, that would not surprise me.

 

[Marcia]

1 John 5:1 precludes that possibility. If you believe, then you HAVE (already) been born again.

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

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. NAS

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. NIV

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. ESV

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. NKJV

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.

 

[Winman]

You are correct Marcia, but they are not going to listen.

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.

This verse makes it clear as day that you have to first believe to be born again.