View on regeneration

[Marcia]

I would also like to point out, that someone said in another thread, that "by far" more people on this forum believed faith preceded regeneration. This poll shows the opposite (thus far).

But if you count the numbers for faith and regeneration being simultaneous, then it's not really true that the prevailing view is regeneration then faith. :tongue3:

 

[Marcia]

Archangel, my friend

As a fellow Calvinist, I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

I don't think these verses warrant regeneration preceding faith. In fact, these verses seem to point to faith preceding regeneration.

Verse 12: 1. Receive Jesus; 2. Become children of God.

Verse 13 is simply descriptive of what it means to become children of God.

It's not a proof text for regeneration preceding faith.

TC, I have to commend you on stepping out of your comfort zone to post your honest thoughts here.

 

[Havensdad]

TC, I have to commend you on stepping out of your comfort zone to post your honest thoughts here.

How is he stepping out of his comfort zone to post what He believes? That's what we are all doing!

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel, my friend

As a fellow Calvinist, I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

I don't think these verses warrant regeneration preceding faith. In fact, these verses seem to point to faith preceding regeneration.

Verse 12: 1. Receive Jesus; 2. Become children of God.

Verse 13 is simply descriptive of what it means to become children of God.

It's not a proof text for regeneration preceding faith.

TC,

As always, good to hear from you.

It is not my concern in this passage (which was referenced by Winman) to argue for regeneration preceding faith. It is, however, my goal to show that Winman's appeal to this verse as a proof-text for faith preceding regeneration is wrong.

All of the aorist verbs show simple snap-shots of the past. The participial phrase (which occurs at the end of the verse) is just showing a present state--that of believing. Further, when you get to v. 13 you see God's action (through the passive), again in the aorist to show a simple snapshot of what God has done.

Now, I'll readily agree that I can't show regeneration preceding redemption here. On the other hand, it cannot be shown that faith is preceding redemption either. At most this verse could show that regeneration and faith are simultaneous.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Since we can't vote twice and mine is the the wrong section :laugh:
Tally thus far is
8 for regeneration preceding faith
5 for faith preceding regeneration
and..
6 for both being simultaneous.

AAHHhhhhhhh! You had me all excited for nothing! :smilewinkgrin:

Lots of Love to you Allan!

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Now, I'll readily agree that I can't show regeneration preceding redemption here. On the other hand, it cannot be shown that faith is preceding redemption either. At most this verse could show that regeneration and faith are simultaneous.

See, y'all got to get on board with me

 

[The Archangel]

You just can't make a correct assumption, can you?

Ugly, again. Try something of substance, not ad hominems.

I never said anything about being KJVO. I do love the KJV; it is probably the best translation, at least it lasted a long time as the primary bible used in the United States. And, for over 300 years if you asked 99 percent of the people to give you a bible, the KJV is what you would have been given.

I love the KJV too. You cant beat it for it's beauty, especially in the Psalms. But, it is not the best translation. Since the KJV was translated (nearly 400 years ago) many, many more manuscripts have been found and that has helped our efforts in the area of textual criticism. Some of the things we've found have shown the Greek manuscripts used for the KJV were not as accurate as once hoped. Most modern translations (except the NKJV) used the more attested to manuscripts and are, therefore, better to a large extent.

The issue isn't the KJV though, it is your obsession with the Greek texts. Let me ask you if you think there is a reliable English bible a person can depend on to convey God's Word without having to be a Greek scholar?

Obsessed with the Greek? Yes and no. But, the primary job of every expositor of God's word is to find the main point that the author was trying to convey. Going to the Greek (or Hebrew) makes that much easier. After all, any Christian should want to rightly know God through His word and that includes knowing what He actually intended to say--not what you think He said.

As for a dependable translation??? I think there are several. I prefer the ESV (mostly because I did my language work at seminary while using that translation, so I have about an 85%-95% chance of knowing the Greek behind a particular translation). I think the NASB is great.

I do not recommend the NIV because it leaves out many connecting particles and therefore interrupts the flow of thought. (But, I do enjoy reading the NIV as a commentary-like exercise).

For new Christians or people on a lower reading level, I recommend the NLT. It is easy to read and it works hard to convey the author's intent, even if it doesn't always use the author's words.

As far as ugliness is concerned, you seem to give about as good as you get, so please spare me the dramatics.

Whatever. Like BaptistBob, you have never addressed me in a cordial manner. I'm beginning to think you and BaptistBob are one-in-the-same. Perhaps you are serving as each other's doppelganger?

Again I see you as continually presenting yourself as a Greek scholar in order to disprove the fact that God offers His salvation to anyone who is willing to turn to Him in faith.

Well, then, you must not be able to see clearly. I whole-heartedly agree that the Gospel is to be made available and preached to all men. And I believe that anyone willing can and will turn to God in repentance and faith. I just don't think the fallen heart is capable and God must make the unwilling and unable willing and able to respond to Him.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

See, y'all got to get on board with me

Don't get too excited webdog! I wasn't saying that I affirm that idea. I was merely stating the passage could (as in might, not definitively, maybe, etc.) show regeneration as being concurrent with faith.

Blessings!

The Archangel

 

[TCGreek]

TC,

As always, good to hear from you.

It is not my concern in this passage (which was referenced by Winman) to argue for regeneration preceding faith. It is, however, my goal to show that Winman's appeal to this verse as a proof-text for faith preceding regeneration is wrong.

All of the aorist verbs show simple snap-shots of the past. The participial phrase (which occurs at the end of the verse) is just showing a present state--that of believing. Further, when you get to v. 13 you see God's action (through the passive), again in the aorist to show a simple snapshot of what God has done.

Now, I'll readily agree that I can't show regeneration preceding redemption here. On the other hand, it cannot be shown that faith is preceding redemption either. At most this verse could show that regeneration and faith are simultaneous.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Archangel,

I wouldn't hang too much on John's use of different kinds of verbs and their tenses in this narrative.

In the Greek text, "those who believe in his name" is appositional to "all who received him" (see for example the NRSV's rendering).

"Those who believe" represents a present participle because the Greek construction wishes to convey simultaneous action.

 

[TCGreek]

TC, I have to commend you on stepping out of your comfort zone to post your honest thoughts here.

Some texts are worth reexaming.

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel,

I wouldn't hang too much on John's use of different kinds of verbs and their tenses in this narrative.

In the Greek text, "those who believe in his name" is appositional to "all who received him" (see for example the NRSV's rendering).

"Those who believe" represents a present participle because the Greek construction wishes to convey simultaneous action.

Yea....you know, I don't think so.

I'd agree that these phrases are in apposition (and the the NRSV and the ESV translate them well as such). But the participle isn't an appositional participle. You are taking this as an adverbial participle and I am not convinced it should be taken adverbially.

This particular participle, I think, must be taken as an adjectival participle--merely because it has an article that is functioning normally.

If this were an adverbial participle, you would be correct, I think, that the action conveyed by the construct would be simultaneous. However, this isn't an adverbial participle--it is adjectival. As such, the participle functions as the substantive (for lack of a better term) of the clause "the ones believing in His name." And because it is a dative, I think it joins nicely with the first clause of the sentence showing the apposition of the two clauses.

As a present participle, Wallace states: The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation. (footnote 22 in Wallace's chapter on the participle)

So, in relation to the aorist verbs, I think the present participle is used for more theological purposes.

For the reasons stated above, I don't think you are correct.

What do you think?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

....the passage could (as in might, not definitively, maybe, etc.) show regeneration as being concurrent with faith.

Blessings!

The Archangel

IMHO, although typically, generally, regeneration precedes belief (even by years), there's actually nothing to prevent God from allowing the effectual call and the gospel call to seemingly occur concurrently without violating the maxim, 'Dead men do nothing'.

It IS lawful for Him to do what He wills with His own, you know.

 

[canadyjd]

...You actually believe that even though God knew that in the history of the world where there would be myriads of more believers who speak English than Greek, and where the center of biblical evangelism would be both England and the United States, yet He did not give us the Word of God in English? You think God would take the country that in the past 200 years has done more to spread the Gospel than any other country in history and not give us the Word of God?...

And God, seeing those 17th century English translators would misunderstand many word usages and the subtle references of the Greek language, gave us men and women of great intellect and ability to study the original languages (not just the scriptures but other writings as well) and for many centuries afterward they give us an even better understanding of His Word.

And that effort continues. It forces us to continually focus on His Word, ever illuminated by Holy Spirit, digging deeper into the mysteries of God, bringing us all together in the knowledge of the Truth.:love2::1_grouphug::love2:

peace to youraying:

BTW, regeneration precedes faith.

 

[Jarthur001]

Keep on studying your Greek and believe ignorant doctrines like Calvinism. I will take the plane unadulterated gospel God has blessed for scores of years!

If you only knew how ignorant of a statement this is, you would never post it. I'm not talking about the slam on Calvinism, but your slam on the Greek, from which your translation came. Your scores of years....haha...that too makes me laugh. Do you think the English translation has more years on the Greek? :laugh:

 

[The Archangel]

IMHO, although typically, generally, regeneration precedes belief (even by years), there's actually nothing to prevent God from allowing the effectual call and the gospel call to seemingly occur concurrently without violating the maxim, 'Dead men do nothing'.

It IS lawful for Him to do what He wills with His own, you know.

Agreed. I think Paul's regeneration and belief were simultaneous. I'm saying, though, the passage quoted is not showing faith preceding regeneration.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[David Michael Harris]

I think it all happens when we believe. It's all given to us. To believe that God exists is the exact opposite of what the world does, and O how the world insults God.

God's will is to believe in the One whom He sent. He who does so say's that God is true.

 

[TCGreek]

Yea....you know, I don't think so.

I'd agree that these phrases are in apposition (and the the NRSV and the ESV translate them well as such). But the participle isn't an appositional participle. You are taking this as an adverbial participle and I am not convinced it should be taken adverbially.

This particular participle, I think, must be taken as an adjectival participle--merely because it has an article that is functioning normally.

If this were an adverbial participle, you would be correct, I think, that the action conveyed by the construct would be simultaneous. However, this isn't an adverbial participle--it is adjectival. As such, the participle functions as the substantive (for lack of a better term) of the clause "the ones believing in His name." And because it is a dative, I think it joins nicely with the first clause of the sentence showing the apposition of the two clauses.

As a present participle, Wallace states: The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation. (footnote 22 in Wallace's chapter on the participle)

So, in relation to the aorist verbs, I think the present participle is used for more theological purposes.

For the reasons stated above, I don't think you are correct.

What do you think?

Blessings,

The Archangel

Archangel,

A participle with the article doesn't rule out its appositional function. In fact, it only strengthens the case for such.

Let me give you a few examples of such appositional function of the participle with the article:

1. Matt. 1:6: Jesus, the one called the Christ.

2. Mark 6:14: John the Baptizer

3. 1 Thess. 1:10: Jesus, the one who rescues us from the coming wrath.

The NT Greek data is on my side.

Context determines the use of a participle, not some blanket statement.

Until convincing evidence is shown to prove otherwise, "those who believe" seem to reflect an appositional participle in John 1:12.

 

[Rippon]

Only with the rise of the Modern Versions, did Arminian theology such as yours flip the table.

Come on now. That's silly. The sheer volume of modern versions leasds to Arminian theology?! Absurd. There is no correlation.

It could well be argued that reading the Geneva or KJV as your primary Bible, actually leads to Calvinism.

The NIV and NLTse among many other versions should lead to Calvinism as well. The NIV in particular has been acused of being too Calvinistic.

 

[Rippon]

Keep on studying your Greek and believe ignorant doctrines like Calvinism. I will take the plane [sic]unadulterated gospel God has blessed for scores of years!

Kids like you say the craziest things.

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel,

A participle with the article doesn't rule out its appositional function. In fact, it only strengthens the case for such.

I'm not disagreeing that the participle is appositional. What I'm saying that it is an adjectival participle (as opposed to an adverbial participle) that is in apposition to the first clause of the sentence.

Let me give you a few examples of such appositional function of the participle with the article:

1. Matt. 1:6: Jesus, the one called the Christ.

2. Mark 6:14: John the Baptizer

3. 1 Thess. 1:10: Jesus, the one who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Matt 1:6 and Mark 6:14 seems to be adjectival (an articular participle adding information to "Jesus" and "John," respectively). 1 Thessalonians 1:10 shows another adjectival use, I think. It is adding information to "Jesus."

I'm not disagreeing with an appositional use, per se. My disagreement is this: The participle in the John 1:12 passage is not adverbial. If it were adverbial, your argument, I think, would be much more correct. As it is, the articular participle rule out an adverbial usage and, therefore, the concurrent action is, I think, ruled out also.

The NT Greek data is on my side.

Context determines the use of a participle, not some blanket statement.

Until convincing evidence is shown to prove otherwise, "those who believe" seem to reflect an appositional participle in John 1:12.

Sure, context is important. But I don't think context can break the construction rules--in other words, I don't think context can make a participle which is clearly adjectival into an adverbial participle.

Blessings,

The Archangel