Regeneration does precede Redemption

[BaptistBob]

It is not placing regeneration prior to faith, however.

Well, yea, it is. The verb (and adverb) born again is passive signifying that the subject cannot do this to himself or herself. So, when this is coupled with the third-class conditional statement, the text is saying "unless God 'borns' someone again, that someone cannot see the kingdom..."

Blessings,

The Archangel

The passive does not idicate anything about faith. The passive only idicates that the person receives the action of the verb in the sentence. Volition on the part of the individual is niether supported nor negated by the particular verb. Any decent grammar will explain that. Wallace does so on the very first paragraph on p. 431.

Since John has already explained this issue earlier, we know that faith comes before regeneration. The fact that regeneration is passive affects nothing, since no one negates it.

 

[BaptistBob]

In my understanding, regeneration precedes faith (belief).

John 1:13 born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

"From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again? Belief being a decision would also be excluded as a condition for being born again since God doesn't believe for us."

Conclusion, faith does not bring about spiritual birth which comes at regeneration (new birth), and therefore must differ from eternal life which is only received by a human response of faith.

No, all these aspects describe natural descent. John is contrasting the natural birth [from Abraham] (an assumed supriority of the Jew) with the spiritual one, which follows Abrahamic faith. He has already touched on this theme, and will develop it in more depth, later.

Who were born not of bloods An allusion to a particular physical bloodline (see above)

nor of the will of the flesh "Flesh" in John is always a neutral concept. It refers to physical urges here.

nor of the will of a husband Again, the decision the husband makes in sexual matters is in view, but behind this stands the euphemism of "will," which is a reference to sexual desire in this phrase and the previous one. Compare 1 Cor. 7:36-37:

If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.

So to the "ones believing in his name" God empowered to be called the sons of God. They believed, and God acted upon them with the new birth that resulted. This birth is not of natural descent; it is from above, by God himself.

 

[BaptistBob]

Sure it does. You just don't want to 'hear' it. You said "If your understanding does not square with Scripture, it is your understanding that needs to go." I have shown you, grammatically, how your own understanding does not square with scripture and you dismiss it out of hand rather than try to tell me why the grammar supports your position.

Actually, you are once again lecturing on basic grammar, which you do not understand. The person with whom you have a disagreement has a grasp of the meaning via an English translation, which, fortunatley, is good enough. He then applies logic to the situation and comes to the right conclusion.

You, on the other hand, misunderstand the scope of the passive, and therefore lecture him about something that you are wrong about. Study basic Greek.

 

[The Archangel]

Actually, you are once again lecturing on basic grammar, which you do not understand. The person with whom you have a disagreement has a grasp of the meaning via an English translation, which, fortunatley, is good enough. He then applies logic to the situation and comes to the right conclusion.

You, on the other hand, misunderstand the scope of the passive, and therefore lecture him about something that you are wrong about. Study basic Greek.

As I said, I will listen to the advice of Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..." and will cease to discuss anything with you.

 

[BaptistBob]

As I said, I will listen to the advice of Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..." and will cease to discuss anything with you.

Greek grammarians aren't fools.

 

[The Archangel]

Greek grammarians aren't fools.

Of course not, that's why I was referring to you. After all, selectively quoting grammars is disingenuous and foolish and doing so after having completely misread what I wrote so as to misrepresent what I said is equally foolish and equally disingenuous.

Never did I argue volition of any kind. Volition isn't argued in the text in question. I merely said the subject is acted upon in order to see the kingdom. No grammar you can conjure up will disagree. And maybe it would have been more helpful to quote all of Wallace paragraph, especially the part about "In general it can be said that in the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb. No volition--nor even necessarily awareness of the action--is implied on the part of the subject. That is the subject may or may not be aware, its volition may or may not be involved. But these things are not stressed when the passive is used." (p 431, emphases Wallace's). And maybe you should have read forward to see the section that discusses the unexpressed agency and the Divine Passive.

But, I'm forgetting myself--Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..."

 

[BaptistBob]

Of course not, that's why I was referring to you. After all, selectively quoting grammars is disingenuous and foolish and doing so after having completely misread what I wrote so as to misrepresent what I said is equally foolish and equally disingenuous.

Never did I argue volition of any kind. I merely said the subject is acted upon in order to see the kingdom. No grammar you can conjure up will disagree.

But, I'm forgetting myself--Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..." and will cease to dicuss anything with you.

Hardly. I qouted webdog and your negation of what he said. You gave your explantion and I demonstrated your misunderstanding.

 

[Marcia]

I just want to say I love you Calvinists! :love2:

It's funny that on the thread about whether God changes his mind, the Calvinists and I are on the same side, even though here we are not in total agreement.. Life is an adventure, isn't it?

 

[The Archangel]

Hardly. I qouted [sic] webdog and your negation of what he said. You gave your explantion [sic] and I demonstrated your misunderstanding.

Not at all. You simply have no clue...But, there I go again--Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..."

 

[BaptistBob]

Not at all. You simply have no clue...But, there I go again--Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..."

Well, you can get your jollies out of pointing out my typos, but I'm typing on my phone, and can hardly see the letters.

 

[BaptistBob]

Never did I argue volition of any kind. Volition isn't argued in the text in question. I merely said the subject is acted upon in order to see the kingdom. No grammar you can conjure up will disagree. And maybe it would have been more helpful to quote all of Wallace's [sic] paragraph, especially the part about "In general it can be said that in the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb. No volition--nor even necessarily awareness of the action--is implied on the part of the subject. That is the subject may or may not be aware, its volition may or may not be involved. But these things are not stressed when the passive is used." (p. [sic] 431, emphases Wallace's). And maybe you should have read forward to see the section that discusses the unexpressed agency and the Divine Passive.

But, I'm forgetting myself--Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..."

Thanks for pointing out the very paragraph that I told you to read. It's funny that you say that perhaps I should have read it. It's ironic that he basically said the exact same thing I said, isn't it?

Actually, your argument is against volition, due to the fact that you argued that faith can't come before regenration, due to the fact that "born again" is passive. The issue was not whether anyone had volition afterward.

In other words, just like a person who goes to the doctor and is cured by the doctor because he trusts the doctor, there is volition on the part of the person who is passive in their treatment. Wallace is addressing that as well.

And maybe you should have read forward to see the section that discusses the unexpressed agency and the divine [sic] passive[sic].

I read it. So? It supports my position.

 

[The Archangel]

Thanks for pointing out the very paragraph that I told you to read. It's funny that you say that perhaps I should have read it. It's ironic that he basically said the exact same thing I said, isn't it?

Actually, your argument is against volition, due to the fact that you argued that faith can't come before regenration, due to the fact that it is passive. The issue was not whether anyone had volition afterward.

In other words, just like a person who goes to the doctor and is cured by the doctor because he trusts the doctor, there is volition on the part of the person who is passive in their treatment. Wallace is addressing that as well.



I read it. So? It supports my position.

You really are a piece of work. You have no clue what you are talking about. Your ugly and nasty tone, again, shows you are not worth my time. Still, you never address me in a cordial manner and you show your horrific lack of understanding of the Greek while extolling your own so-called understanding of Greek.

Perhaps you could learn something. But it is repeatedly clear that you can do nothing but engage in personal attacks in an ugly manner and in doing so, you show a great deficiency in your own faith.

So, be a fool if you'd like. And I will Answer not a fool according to his folly.

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

As I said, I will listen to the advice of Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..." and will cease to discuss anything with you.

I thought you didn't like personal attacks?

 

[BaptistBob]

You really are a piece of work. You have no clue what you are talking about. Your ugly and nasty tone, again, shows you are not worth my time. Still, you never address me in a cordial manner and you show your horrific lack of understanding of the Greek while extolling your own so-called understanding of Greek.

Perhaps you could learn something. But it is repeatedly clear that you can do nothing but engage in personal attacks in an ugly manner and in doing so, you show a great deficiency in your own faith.

So, be a fool if you'd like. And I will Answer not a fool according to his folly.

The Archangel

My comments concerning the Greek stand unrefuted. All you have done so far is point me to the paragraph that I pointed you to, which says exactly what I said prior.

 

[The Archangel]

My comments concerning the Greek stand unrefuted. All you have done so far is point me to the paragraph that I pointed you to, which says exactly what I said prior.

If they are unrefuted (which they are not), it is only because you are arguing something I never addressed.

The text shows a passive verb--the subject is being acted upon by God and the action of God is what gives entrance to the Kingdom. Couple that with the third-class conditional nature of the sentence and it expresses exactly what I suggested it expresses.

The problem in your approach to me is that you are horribly blinded by a rage-full passion against me. It's not that you disagree with my interpretations, others like Webdog and Allan disagree with me. No, it's that you don't address me cordially because you don't like me because I disagree with your position.

Perhaps it is the case that you are so filled with hubris and narcissism that you can't handle someone challenging your beliefs. So, when someone does, you don't evaluate the claims...you attack. Perhaps you should change your moniker to BaptistAdHominem.

Good bye. I have been disobeying scripture, I'm sorry to say, when it says "Answer not a fool according to his folly." I shall now go and repent of that.

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Well, yea, it is. The verb (and adverb) born again is passive signifying that the subject cannot do this to himself or herself. So, when this is coupled with the third-class conditional statement, the text is saying "unless God 'borns' someone again, that someone cannot see the kingdom..."

Blessings,

The Archangel

Sorry Arch I disagree with your understanding on this. Not regarding the third-class conditional statement but more specifically what is meant by 'seeing' and 'entering'. We all agree that being 'born' is that act of God upon man and therefore you have man being passive in said act. that goes without saying...

Yes, it does state that one must first be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God. The issue that needs to be resolved in the text brother is not that is this refering to being born precedeing faith but what exactly is the 'seeing' and also 'entering' refering to, of which being born obviously precedes. Is it refering to understanding? I can not see it as such according to what the text states since we see Jesus restates the same premise in another way- that one must be born-again to enter the Kingdom of God.

The main thrust of Jesus entire conversation with Nick was about salvation by faith and not by works. Jesus takes great pains to show Nick that salvation and the relationship with God is by faith and not of works. It is for this reason Jesus uses Moses and pole/serpent as the example of Christ/Cross. It reveals not the God does something to man first and then man believes and is healed/saved, but that God has done something in which man must believe in that he can be healed/saved. Thus being 'born-again' refers to salvation itself - spiritual and everlasting life. I personally don't feel the context of these passages gives or lends any weight to regeneration preceding faith because the context doesn't even deal with it. IMO - it establishes the very point that being born-again is salvation.

However, the best way to know this for sure is to determine just what regeneration is, what it does, and how that transpires.

Blessings of life, family, and good day to you
Allan

 

[BaptistBob]

If they are unrefuted (which they are not), it is only because you are arguing something I never addressed.

The text shows a passive verb--the subject is being acted upon by God and the action of God is what gives entrance to the Kingdom. Couple that with the third-class conditional nature of the sentence and it expresses exactly what I suggested it expresses.

And? The argument isn't over whether or not someone needs to be born again by God to enter the kingdom. Those who have faith are then born again by God.

The problem in your approach to me is that you are horribly blinded by a rage-full passion against me. It's not that you disagree with my interpretations, others like Webdog and Allan disagree with me. No, it's that you don't address me cordially because you don't like me because I disagree with your position.

Actually, my posts directed at you are much nicer than yours directed to me. Sorry, but just a sampling of what you say to me and others proves that:

You have no clue, not even a little one.

That's hilarious. Rather than deal with the text, even clumsily as you have done in previous posts, you run to other texts that are--by nature of the OP--facts not in evidence.

No, rather than deal with the text you return to "Winman's talking points" giving us the same, tired, broken record we have seen, applying the same lack-of-hermeneutic you have repeatedly shown--never once dealing with 1 John 5:1.

The Archangel

Nice.

Perhaps it is the case that you are so filled with hubris and narcissism that you can't handle someone challenging your beliefs. So, when someone does, you don't evaluate the claims...you attack.

My posts were factual and directed you to the correct information. That's all. Sorry if you were threatened by them.

Looking back, your recent posts don't address the content of what I said. Instead, you are just spewing hatered at me. The content was untouched.

Perhaps you should change your moniker to BaptistAdHominem.

:thumbs:

Good bye. I have been disobeying scripture, I'm sorry to say, when it says "Answer not a fool according to his folly." I shall now go and repent of that.

The Archangel

:thumbs:

 

[Theopolis]

being born-again is salvation.

Allan

I respectfully disagree.

Being born again refers to that which God does to man. Regeneration is a monergistic act, which God alone performs on man, without man's aid. In regeneration God acts and man is passive.
In salvation regenerated man becomes pro-active. While regeneration is a monergistic act, confessing and believing unto salvation is a synergistic act. Therefore I submit that the monergistic act and the synergistic act can't possibly be referring to the same thing. Regeneration and salvation are two separate theological terms which are both assigned different definitions from one another. I do however believe that regeneration leads to salvation, but it is not in and of itself salvation. Regenerated man's pro-activity in the direction of acquiring salvation is described in the following Scripture.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Once again regeneration is a monergistic action

Acquiring salvation requires synergistic action

 

[Theopolis]

It basically means "experience," and is parallel with "enter" in verse 5. However, it follows faith, and is not a prerequitiste.

I agree, to "see" is to experience, and once again in John 3:3 birth precedes "seeing" or experiencing.

Other Scriptures

Several texts from 1 John demonstrate that regeneration precedes faith. The texts are as follows: “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” (1 John 2:29). “No one born 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” (1 John 3:9). “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7). “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whomever has been born of him” (1 John 5:1).
We can make two observations from these texts. First, in every instance the verb “born” (gennaô) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that precedes the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving, or believing.
Second, no evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God. Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (1 John 3:9), and loving God (1 John 4:7). It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ.

 

[Theopolis]

It is a new birth which man cannot possibly perform.

Then you agree with me.