Syntax of 1 John 5:1 as a proof for monergism

[John of Japan]

Proof for Calvinism!

James White just spent a while on this in a recent video (skip the first 2/5 of the vid) but we can shorten his points to this: doesn't 1 John 5:1 indicate via grammar and syntax that a Christian believes as a result of their being born by God?

The argument is that the same grammar and syntax is used in 1 John 2:29 & 4:7 and can only be taken by protestants that the participle (the one doing righteousness; the one loving) is a result of their being born by God.

Here is the text in Greek
2:29:
...everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.
...πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται

4:7:
...whoever loves has been born of God...
...πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται...

5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...
Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται...

What say you, synergists???

I'm really reluctant to get involved here, since I leave for Africa on Monday and have much to do. So this may be my only post here. But I have to say that James White is wrong; the syntax says no such thing as he wishes it does. I just taught participles to my kids in Greek 102, and James misses the target in several basic respects.

1. Participles show aspect but not time. Therefore you cannot pin down a time that the participles in the verses in question took place. In other words, there is no evidence that that participial usage here depends on the perfect tense of the main verb either logically or consecutively.

2. The usage of the participle in all three places is substantival. That is, the participles are being used as nouns, since they are all preceded by Greek articles. Apparently White does not understand that nouns (or substantival participles or substantival adjectives) do not show time or logical sequence.

3. The idea being put forth is cause and effect, which is somewhat the perfective aspect. However, Greek does not normally show cause and effect with a perfect tense preceded by a substantival participle. In translating the NT into Japanese, I recall no case where it does.

 

[revmwc]

I'm all for keeping verses in context. But that does not mean we neglect the ramifications of a single verse and how it affects the entirety of a book's teachings.

I'm not saying one way or another that your view of the entire book is wrong. But I am asking you to exegete a few verses within that book. You can't dodge an issue by moving to "the bigger picture".

In the beginning chapter John shows is Christ, then in verse 3 he begins to make his point. His desire is that those who have believed can have fellowship, he is writing verse 4 states that "your joy might be full" clearly the syntax of the book is focused on fellowship or abiding with Christ that is it deals with our walk as believers. Again we see fellowship coupled with salvation in chapter 2 verse 27 then 28 states now little children abide on Him, there it is again, if you have confident know that is believe He is righteous then everyone that does that which is righteous is of Him. Chapter 3 we don't know exactly how what our resurrected bodies will be like but we shall have a resurrected body like His. When we have hope on Him. Throughout the entire book John hammers home our walk and abiding in Him!

 

[TCassidy]

Here, in 1 John, it is more direct than other places...but there can be room for charitable disagreement.

All disagreement ought to be charitable, but in this case, words mean things. And the word, in the form in which it was inspired, means something that cannot be denied without doing serious damage to the doctrine of inspiration.

 

[TCassidy]

Participles show aspect but not time. Therefore you cannot pin down a time that the participles in the verses in question took place. In other words, there is no evidence that that participial usage here depends on the perfect tense of the main verb either logically or consecutively.

John, I don't think anyone is questioning the non-temporal nature of Greek participles, but the use of the perfect tense does indicate a cause and effect relationship, don't you agree? Isn't that what the perfect tense means?

The perfect tense or aspect is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I don't think anyone is questioning the non-temporal nature of Greek participles, but the use of the perfect tense does indicate a cause and effect relationship, don't you agree? Isn't that what the perfect tense means?

The perfect tense or aspect is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself.

Yes, the perfect tense has the aspect of a past action with continued results. However, the results are those of the action in the verb itself, not necessarily something in the immediate syntax. For example, there is the well-known perfect tense of tetelestai on the cross, "It is finished." However, there is nothing in that immediate context to tell us what is finished--certainly no noun or substantival participle or adjective.

 

[TCassidy]

"It is finished." However, there is nothing in that immediate context to tell us what is finished--certainly no noun or substantival participle or adjective.

Okay, thank you. I see what you are saying, now, and agree. In the case of "It is finished" I am of the opinion all of the righteousness necessary to attain eternal life, necessary from eternity past in the mind of God, was brought to fruition on the cross. So, in that sense I will agree with you. However, I still see 1 John 5:1 as indicating regeneration as being the cause of faith rather than the opposite.

By the way, have a good trip to Africa. And may you be greatly used and richly blessed by God on your journeys.

 

[thatbrian]

I just made up some tee shirts for this thread:

I came here debate, and all I got was a grammar lesson and this lousy tee shirt!

 

[TCassidy]

all I got was a grammar lesson

Without grammar, language would be unintelligible gibberish.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, thank you. I see what you are saying, now, and agree. In the case of "It is finished" I am of the opinion all of the righteousness necessary to attain eternal life, necessary from eternity past in the mind of God, was brought to fruition on the cross. So, in that sense I will agree with you. However, I still see 1 John 5:1 as indicating regeneration as being the cause of faith rather than the opposite.

I see that yours is an attractive view, but I simply don't find it in the syntax.

By the way, have a good trip to Africa. And may you be greatly used and richly blessed by God on your journeys.

Thanks much. I'm going to be training African Bible translators.

 

[John of Japan]

I just made up some tee shirts for this thread:

I came here debate, and all I got was a grammar lesson and this lousy tee shirt!

I love grammar! And let me know when you get the tee shirts made, and I'll order one. Cool

 

[John of Japan]

Let me put it a different way, folks. In 1 John 5:1 (and the similar forms in the other references White gives, "the one doing" and "the one loving"), the substantival participle "the believing one" is the subject of the sentence, being in the nominative case. Now the subject of a sentence is never caused by the verb, nor does the verb exist without or in a time sense, prior to or after its subject. If I say, "Joe was knocked out," is "knocked out" somehow the cause of Joe, or does the "knocked out' situation exist prior to Joe's existence? No, of course not. It's subject and verb working together contemporaneously.

In a more technical vein, Daniel Wallace lists the following usages of the Greek perfect in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 574-582): intensive perfect, extensive perfect, aoristic perfect, perfect with a present force (Robertson's "present perfect"), gnomic perfect and proleptic perfect. Having just looked through these in Wallace, for the life of me, I can't figure out which one White thinks applies here to make his point valid. None of them are described by Wallace with the meaning White wants.

Just one more word here. Cause and effect in koine Greek is usually portrayed by a hina clause, a hoti clause, or dia with the accusative. None of these structures are in play in these verses.

I could say more, but I should work on my Africa preparation. Toodleoo.

 

[Greektim]

Let me put it a different way, folks. In 1 John 5:1 (and the similar forms in the other references White gives, "the one doing" and "the one loving"), the substantival participle "the believing one" is the subject of the sentence, being in the nominative case. Now the subject of a sentence is never caused by the verb, nor does the verb exist without or in a time sense, prior to or after its subject. If I say, "Joe was knocked out," is "knocked out" somehow the cause of Joe, or does the "knocked out' situation exist prior to Joe's existence? No, of course not. It's subject and verb working together contemporaneously.

I find your scenario helpful if you made it more consistent with the texts in question.
"The one laying on the ground was knocked out by Ali" does imply sequence of causation. Considering the verb is passive (so the subject of a sentence can be caused by the verb), the subject is clearly represented as the guy who is on the ground as a result of the action of the verb performed by Ali.

In a more technical vein, Daniel Wallace lists the following usages of the Greek perfect in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 574-582): intensive perfect, extensive perfect, aoristic perfect, perfect with a present force (Robertson's "present perfect"), gnomic perfect and proleptic perfect. Having just looked through these in Wallace, for the life of me, I can't figure out which one White thinks applies here to make his point valid. None of them are described by Wallace with the meaning White wants.

Just one more word here. Cause and effect in koine Greek is usually portrayed by a hina clause, a hoti clause, or dia with the accusative. None of these structures are in play in these verses.

I could say more, but I should work on my Africa preparation. Toodleoo.

While we are invoking Dr. Wallace, he regards 1 John 5:1 and the participle "believing one" to be in a "soteriological context" (GGBB, p. 621 n. 22).

I think something that White leaves out of his argument, perhaps assumed, is that this primarily works because of the meaning of the verb in question "he/she/it has been born". The verb itself implies a beginning or order since it is about "having been born by God". It is a passive verb, God performing the action upon the subject. And since birth is the first stage of life, then what follows in the action described in the substantival participle is resultant. This must be true in all 3 verses where the same perfect passive verb and prepositional phrase "having been born by God" is used. Birth happens first resulting in doing, loving, and believing.

 

[Greektim]

I'm really reluctant to get involved here, since I leave for Africa on Monday and have much to do. So this may be my only post here. But I have to say that James White is wrong; the syntax says no such thing as he wishes it does. I just taught participles to my kids in Greek 102, and James misses the target in several basic respects.

1. Participles show aspect but not time. Therefore you cannot pin down a time that the participles in the verses in question took place. In other words, there is no evidence that that participial usage here depends on the perfect tense of the main verb either logically or consecutively.

But syntactically, how does the present aspect (constant believing) relate to the perfect passive verb? I don't think anyone is saying that the present tense of the participle is what makes this argument. It could just as easily be an aorist participle. It would still be the effect of the verb for other reasons.

2. The usage of the participle in all three places is substantival. That is, the participles are being used as nouns, since they are all preceded by Greek articles. Apparently White does not understand that nouns (or substantival participles or substantival adjectives) do not show time or logical sequence.

Again, this wasn't really part of his argument. There is a verbal aspect to the substantival participle, thus its common use by John. And as it relates here, the argument is one of syntax. The substantival participle does show time or logical sequence in relation to the verb it is the subject of, especially when the verb is passive and the word implies sequence or causation.

3. The idea being put forth is cause and effect, which is somewhat the perfective aspect. However, Greek does not normally show cause and effect with a perfect tense preceded by a substantival participle. In translating the NT into Japanese, I recall no case where it does.

While this may not be the norm for causation in Greek, the perfect tense with the passive voice with the meaning of the word itself implying causation makes it very likely. The question then becomes, which caused the other? Did the substantival participle in all 3 verses cause the birth? Or was the birth by God the cause for the verbal action of the substantival participles? I believe the latter is the only viable option.

 

[Greektim]

Honestly, I'm just glad someone is finally engaging into the real argument here.

Thanks, John! You have my kindest regards as you prepare for Africa. I appreciate all you do in service of our Lord.

 

[John of Japan]

Honestly, I'm just glad someone is finally engaging into the real argument here.

Thanks, John! You have my kindest regards as you prepare for Africa. I appreciate all you do in service of our Lord.

Thanks, Tim.

I did try to find White's explanation on the film, but couldn't.

I probably won't be able to post anymore, but I'll look for your replies to my posts tomorrow, anyway. (I don't do Internet at home, so can't over the weekend.)

 

[Greektim]

Thanks, Tim.

I did try to find White's explanation on the film, but couldn't.

I probably won't be able to post anymore, but I'll look for your replies to my posts tomorrow, anyway. (I don't do Internet at home, so can't over the weekend.)

Take your time. I feel you are the most competent here to dialogue on this issue. So I look forward to your replies when you get a chance. And just in case you didn't see, I already responded to your replies.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry, Greektim, I mistook the thread.

Let's just look at the quote from David Alan Black I put on the other thread:

"The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb." (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113). Therefore, in 1 John 5:1 the participle (believing ones) and the main verb (have been born) are happening at the same time, and the main verb did not cause the substantival participle.

 

[Greektim]

Sorry, Greektim, I mistook the thread.

Let's just look at the quote from David Alan Black I put on the other thread:

"The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb." (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113). Therefore, in 1 John 5:1 the participle (believing ones) and the main verb (have been born) are happening at the same time, and the main verb did not cause the substantival participle.

I don't have this book. More of the context would be helpful. But let me give it a go regardless.

Some preceding points. This has not only to do with the perfect tense but also the passive voice. The passive voice can and frequently does indicate agency (see Black's It's Still Greek to Me, p. 94). In the case of 1 Jn 5:1, "by God" is the prepositional phrase acting as the agent of the passive verb.

Secondly, while Black does mention the aspectual force of Greek verbs, he still seems to favor tense in terms of time. Maybe a 50/50 for aspect and time. Your quote above expresses this quite well. I am more convinced by the aspectual functions of the tenses (or tense-forms as the late Dr. Decker referred to them). Though I'll admit, it is hard to explain this without using time. In the other thread, I explained a perfect tense more with time than aspect. But that is largely because revmwc wasn't going to understand aspect much less the time function.

Without the context of what Dr. Black is saying, it is hard to comment. However, my thoughts have taken me to consider (prior to your post, btw) the idea of the ongoing action of the present participle is what is concurrent with the ongoing result of the perfect passive verb. In other words, as a result of being born by God, the ongoing result of that birth (the main function of the perfect) is the ongoing faith (present participle) of the person born.

 

[John of Japan]

But syntactically, how does the present aspect (constant believing) relate to the perfect passive verb? I don't think anyone is saying that the present tense of the participle is what makes this argument. It could just as easily be an aorist participle. It would still be the effect of the verb for other reasons.

Remember that the aspect of the present tense can be one of two: imperfective or aoristic. In this case I make it out to be aoristic--simply looking at the believing as an action, not a continued action necessarily. How does that relate to the perfect passive verb? Simply as the subject of the sentence. There is no Greek noun "believer," so this substantival participle is simply the subject of the sentence--nothing more. "Secondly, many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 615). He mentions pan ho akouwn in particular, very close to 1 John 5:1 in form.

Again, this wasn't really part of his argument. There is a verbal aspect to the substantival participle, thus its common use by John. And as it relates here, the argument is one of syntax. The substantival participle does show time or logical sequence in relation to the verb it is the subject of, especially when the verb is passive and the word implies sequence or causation.

The participle does not show time, but only aspect. And as I mentioned there are two possibilities for the aspect, so I think it is a mistake to be dogmatic about that.

While this may not be the norm for causation in Greek, the perfect tense with the passive voice with the meaning of the word itself implying causation makes it very likely. The question then becomes, which caused the other? Did the substantival participle in all 3 verses cause the birth? Or was the birth by God the cause for the verbal action of the substantival participles? I believe the latter is the only viable option.

Why must there be a causation at all in this passage? I simply don't see it. The believing is not portrayed as causing the regeneration or vice versa. You'll have to look to other passages for that.

Note the Friberg definition for gennaw:
"genna,w—1. be or become the father of, beget lit. Mt 1:2ff, 20; J 8:41; 9:34; Ac 7:8, 29. Fig. J 1:13; 1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10; 1 J 2:29.—2. of women: bear Lk 1:13, 35, 57; Ac 2:8; 22:28 .—3. fig. cause, produce 2 Ti 2:23." [pg 38]

In almost every usage in the NT it means simply to bear or be born. There is not causation other than to give life. In the example given of a figurative usage, "cause, produce," what is caused is in the accusative (2 Tim. 2:23): γεννῶσιν μάχας. (2Ti 2:23 BYZ), "they cause a quarrel." Since 1 John 5:1 has "the believers" in the nominative, by what stretch of the imagination does White say the regeneration (being born) causes the believing? Please give a NT example showing this usage.

 

[Greektim]

Remember that the aspect of the present tense can be one of two: imperfective or aoristic. In this case I make it out to be aoristic--simply looking at the believing as an action, not a continued action necessarily. How does that relate to the perfect passive verb? Simply as the subject of the sentence. There is no Greek noun "believer," so this substantival participle is simply the subject of the sentence--nothing more. "Secondly, many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 615). He mentions pan ho akouwn in particular, very close to 1 John 5:1 in form.

I don't think I've communicated myself clearly if you think the weight of my argument rests on the present tense of the participle.

The participle does not show time, but only aspect. And as I mentioned there are two possibilities for the aspect, so I think it is a mistake to be dogmatic about that.

My point that you quoted was not that the tense of the participle is what is to be considered. It is the participle as it relates to the verb. Again, none of my argument really rests on the present tense of the participle OTHER THAN you see the same present participles in 1 John 2:29 and 4:7 with the same grammar.

Why must there be a causation at all in this passage? I simply don't see it. The believing is not portrayed as causing the regeneration or vice versa. You'll have to look to other passages for that.

Note the Friberg definition for gennaw:
"genna,w—1. be or become the father of, beget lit. Mt 1:2ff, 20; J 8:41; 9:34; Ac 7:8, 29. Fig. J 1:13; 1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10; 1 J 2:29.—2. of women: bear Lk 1:13, 35, 57; Ac 2:8; 22:28 .—3. fig. cause, produce 2 Ti 2:23." [pg 38]

In almost every usage in the NT it means simply to bear or be born. There is not causation other than to give life. In the example given of a figurative usage, "cause, produce," what is caused is in the accusative (2 Tim. 2:23): γεννῶσιν μάχας. (2Ti 2:23 BYZ), "they cause a quarrel."

Causation is implied in that the verb "has been born" implies a beginning state. Anything, like "love" or "doing righteousness" or "believing" will only be a logical (not chronological) result.

Since 1 John 5:1 has "the believers" in the nominative, by what stretch of the imagination does White say the regeneration (being born) causes the believing? Please give a NT example showing this usage.

The clue here is in the passive voice. The "believers" are the ones receiving the action of the verb NOT performing it. Therefore, they can be the result caused by the verb with God as the primary agent. And the thing is, if you change the sentence to an active voice with God as the subject, then you would not get the same resultant action. Therefore this sentence had to be in the passive, just like it did in 1 Jn 2:29 and 4:7. Imagine if John wrote in 1 Jn 4:7, "God has given birth to all those doing righteousness". That would be theologically incorrect. But it was put in the passive voice to indicate that the birth by God is what caused the action of doing righteousness. The same is true of 2:29 and 5:1.