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

[Greektim]

I'll let you know when White responds... if he responds. Maybe I can hound him on facebook.

I acknowledge Machen's quote, though it is a bit dated. Plus, as a beginning grammar, he may be stating a general truth for simplicity sake. Aren't first year grammars notorious for this? But I'll give you Machen.

The thing w/ Dr. Black's quotation is that (1) the force of the temporal significance is mostly directed by context and (2) he is speaking "especially true of adverbial participles". These 2 points are observed in his examples he provided. Neither were articular or adjectival (thus not substantival) and they were both directed contextually to see some temporal force in regards to the main verb. I think the main verb gegennetai does make that indication for some sort of causal sequence. Let me explain with your quotation:

As I think I have noted, since the grammar in 2:29 and 4:7 is very similar to that of 5:1, the same arguments apply. So I see no need to reiterate all of my arguments for 5:1 in connection with those verses. I'll simply say that it is fully in line with the syntax of 2:29 to say that the righteousness is a sign of being born again (not a result), and the same thing goes for "loving" in 4:7. To prove otherwise, as I've noted several times, one would have to find a meaning for gennaw of producing what the subject of the sentence is rather than simply birthing.

Grammar is similar? Try identical. Pas + article + substantival present participle + gegennetai + ek theou (or autou). Now there might be some extras in some cases, as in an object for the verbal action of the participle (doing righteousness). But still identical.

So if "loving" and "doing righteousness" are signs of spiritual birth, would it not follow that they are logically subsequent to spiritual birth? Maybe not "result" in the strict sense, but still part of the entire cause/effect sequence of salvation, starting with the new birth and eventually demonstrating that new birth with consistent living such as "love" and "doing righteousness"?

 

[John of Japan]

I'll let you know when White responds... if he responds. Maybe I can hound him on facebook.

I'll look forward to your report.

I acknowledge Machen's quote, though it is a bit dated. Plus, as a beginning grammar, he may be stating a general truth for simplicity sake. Aren't first year grammars notorious for this? But I'll give you Machen.

Thank you kindly.

The thing w/ Dr. Black's quotation is that (1) the force of the temporal significance is mostly directed by context and (2) he is speaking "especially true of adverbial participles". These 2 points are observed in his examples he provided. Neither were articular or adjectival (thus not substantival) and they were both directed contextually to see some temporal force in regards to the main verb. I think the main verb gegennetai does make that indication for some sort of causal sequence. Let me explain with your quotation:

I backed off on my other Black quote, but I'm sticking with this one. Granted, Dr. Black said "especially true of adverbial participles," but this statement does not rule out adjectival participles.

Concerning your statement about substantival participles not being adjectival, most grammars classify the substantival usage as a form of the adjectival. Oddly enough, in his basic grammar Dr. Black makes the substantival a third usage alongside adjectival and adverbial, but in his intermediate grammar he classifies the arthrous participle as adjectival (p. 122).

Grammar is similar? Try identical. Pas + article + substantival present participle + gegennetai + ek theou (or autou). Now there might be some extras in some cases, as in an object for the verbal action of the participle (doing righteousness). But still identical.

Sorry, I still say similar because of the "extra" in 2:29. A direct object to the substantival participle means that it must be translated with a clause instead of just a noun as 5:1 can be. You'd better stick to just 4:7 as being identical grammar.

So if "loving" and "doing righteousness" are signs of spiritual birth, would it not follow that they are logically subsequent to spiritual birth? Maybe not "result" in the strict sense, but still part of the entire cause/effect sequence of salvation, starting with the new birth and eventually demonstrating that new birth with consistent living such as "love" and "doing righteousness"?

Nope, sorry, can't see it. I'll stick with my interpretation and we can agree to disagree.

 

[Greektim]

Concerning your statement about substantival participles not being adjectival, most grammars classify the substantival usage as a form of the adjectival. Oddly enough, in his basic grammar Dr. Black makes the substantival a third usage alongside adjectival and adverbial, but in his intermediate grammar he classifies the arthrous participle as adjectival (p. 122).

I'm not sure how I communicated this, but that was not my intent. Quite the opposite, that substantival participles are adjectival rather than adverbial.

I've not heard from Dr. White, and I'm not entirely sure that I will. But I'll keep trying. I asked him to probe Wallace since he knows him personally. But I think White misused Wallace to make his case. And that is disingenuous. I don't want my "side" built on bad info.

Sorry, I still say similar because of the "extra" in 2:29. A direct object to the substantival participle means that it must be translated with a clause instead of just a noun as 5:1 can be. You'd better stick to just 4:7 as being identical grammar.

I think that is a stretch. John could just as easily added "believers in Christ" or some such. The grammar is still identical. Similarly with "loving" such as "all lovers of the brethren" (which may be implied in the context, btw). So giving a substantival participle an object doesn't mean it is less substantival. 2:29 can be "each doer of righteousness have been born by God." No clause needed. The participle is still acting as a noun with a verbal action thus an object. If it were Paul, he probably would have just created a new word. But that's not John's style.

 

[kyredneck]

Without grammar, language would be unintelligible gibberish.

Without the guidance of the Spirit the scriptures are unintelligible gibberish.

 

[Greektim]

Without the guidance of the Spirit the scriptures are unintelligible gibberish.

Is that really what you believe about illumination? I know many scholarly critics that can intelligibly understand Scripture. But its truths have not taken root.

 

[TCassidy]

Is that really what you believe about illumination? I know many scholarly critics that can intelligibly understand Scripture. But its truths have not taken root.

As Mark Twain said, "It is not the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me. It is the parts I do understand."

 

[kyredneck]

Is that really what you believe about illumination?

YES!

27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him. 1 Jn 2

18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold Wondrous things out of thy law. Ps 119

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. Mt 23

27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?
45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures; Lu 24

12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. 1 Cor 2

5 But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Ja 1

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Mt 7

I know many scholarly critics that can intelligibly understand Scripture. But its truths have not taken root.

Wow. Maybe they haven't asked. Or maybe the Spirit isn't present to teach. Maybe they fall into this category:

14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. 1 Cor 2

 

[Greektim]

That is exactly the problem. They fall into the category of the "natural man" and so forth. But they can still make intelligible sense of the Bible. But the truths do not take root and affect (or even effect) their lives.

 

[kyredneck]

They fall into the category of the "natural man" and so forth. But they can still make intelligible sense of the Bible.

Even the unregenerate can be good at Bible linguistics, right? But thank God His children are NOT dependent upon Bible linguistics in order to receive the things of the Spirit of God.

 

[Greektim]

Even the unregenerate can be good at Bible linguistics, right? But thank God His children are NOT dependent upon Bible linguistics in order to receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Yes and no. I believe God uses the medium of language to communicate truth. Otherwise, charismatic tongues/gibberish could rightly be called a valid form for God to communicate so long as the people are depending on the Spirit to receive whatever it is they are to receive. Bible translations would need to be accurate... or exist in any intelligible or meaningful way so long as you have the Spirit. Much like evangelism, God has ordained for his people to be the medium of carrying the gospel. Yet it is the Spirit that must effectually change the heart. It is both/and not either/or.

PS-I put a quote in the Edersheim thread that I'd like you to respond to, in case you didn't see it.

 

[John of Japan]

So giving a substantival participle an object doesn't mean it is less substantival. 2:29 can be "each doer of righteousness have been born by God." No clause needed. The participle is still acting as a noun with a verbal action thus an object. If it were Paul, he probably would have just created a new word. But that's not John's style.

"No clause needed"???? Um, "each doer of righteousness" is a clause.

 

[Greektim]

"No clause needed"???? Um, "each doer of righteousness" is a clause.

Not by the definition of "clause" that I am aware of. There is no verb in that phrase. The noun has a verbal characteristic to it. But that is not a clause.

Wallace states that a clause is made up of "a subject and predicate or a nonfinite verbal form (i.e., either an infinitive or participle)" (p. 656). There is neither a predicate nor does the participle count since the participle is the subject and Wallace says that it must be a subject and a participle.

 

[John of Japan]

Not by the definition of "clause" that I am aware of. There is no verb in that phrase. The noun has a verbal characteristic to it. But that is not a clause.

Wallace states that a clause is made up of "a subject and predicate or a nonfinite verbal form (i.e., either an infinitive or participle)" (p. 656). There is neither a predicate nor does the participle count since the participle is the subject and Wallace says that it must be a subject and a participle.

Yeah, after I wrote it I thought you might say that. Point taken.

So fine, it's a phrase. That still sets it apart in a minor way grammatically from 5:1. Nothing to fuss about, though.

 

[Greektim]

Yeah, after I wrote it I thought you might say that. Point taken.

So fine, it's a phrase. That still sets it apart in a minor way grammatically from 5:1. Nothing to fuss about, though.

So minor that it is infinitesimally small. So small, it might as well be identical.

I'd argue that the participle "doer" requires an object for it to have meaning. A doer of what? Sin? No. Righteousness. "Believer" or "lover" does not need an object, though it could have one if so desired.

But as you say, not much to fuss about. 1 John 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 are nearly identical enough that we could argue that the same terms and structure indicates the same use of the grammar and syntax in each of the 3 cases. I think that is fair to say.

 

[percho]

As Mark Twain said, "It is not the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me. It is the parts I do understand."

As W C Fields said when caught reading the bible, "Just looking for a loophole,"

There is a loophole. I wonder.....................if It ever found him? Ummm!