What Side Of The Fence Are You?

[Dr. Walter]

Ummm....I think not.

While I respect John of Japan, his argument was certainly not convincing. I dare say you are only calling those whom you agree with "scholars," not knowing Greek yourself (by your own admission).

Blessings,

The Archangel

I have had five years of classroom Greek in college and Seminary and although that certainly does not make me a Greek scholar I am very familiar with Greek grammar. I understand the normal argument for simeltaneous action of the present tense participle with the perfect tense verb but even following that argument there is clearly a logical sequence where new birth precedes believing just as in every other case this same grammatical structure is found in first John (1 Jn. 2:29; 4:7; etc.) where new birth logically precedes doing righteousness or loving.

 

[webdog]

I have had five years of classroom Greek in college and Seminary and although that certainly does not make me a Greek scholar I am very familiar with Greek grammar. I understand the normal argument for simeltaneous action of the present tense participle with the perfect tense verb but even following that argument there is clearly a logical sequence where new birth precedes believing just as in every other case this same grammatical structure is found in first John (1 Jn. 2:29; 4:7; etc.) where new birth logically precedes doing righteousness or loving.

The thread in question this has been dissected on...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1512901&postcount=53

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1512901#post1512901

In regards to the above bolded, that would depend on how one needs this sequence to be in order to make the doctrine as a whole work.

 

[MB]

No, grace does not come through faith but produces faith (Rom. 4:16). Ephesians 2:8 does not say that grace comes through faith but that having been saved is a product of grace and one is saved "through faith."

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
Looks to me like you disagree with Paul. Of course you'll come back with your explanation of the Greek and argue the meanings of the words.
Like in;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

I John 5:1 must be interpreted with previous uses of the same construction found in 1 Jn. 2:29 and I Jn. 4:7. The completed Perfect tense action of new birth precedes the present tense action of believing just as the completed Perfect tense action of new birth in I Jn. 2:29 precedes the present tense actions of good works and just as the perfect tense action of new birth precedes the present tense action of loving in I Jn. 4:7.

In my opinion your interpretation is the problem. The Bible has been translated in to English and scripture is of no man's particular interpretation. What I might not understand isn't explained to me by men but by God and the Bible it self. Why do you think your interpretation and logical conclusions mean anything at all. Isn't God able to dictate His word in a fashion so that all men can understand it?

In all of these passages the new birth is the cause and doing good works, loving and believing are consequential actions and no amount of scholarly nonsense can change those grammatical facts.

Absolute nonsense there were no gramatical rules 2000 years ago.
MB

 

[Dr. Walter]

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
Looks to me like you disagree with Paul. Of course you'll come back with your explanation of the Greek and argue the meanings of the words.
Like in;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,


In my opinion your interpretation is the problem. The Bible has been translated in to English and scripture is of no man's particular interpretation. What I might not understand isn't explained to me by men but by God and the Bible it self. Why do you think your interpretation and logical conclusions mean anything at all. Isn't God able to dictate His word in a fashion so that all men can understand it?

Absolute nonsense there were no gramatical rules 2000 years ago.
MB

Looks to me that you cannot read English! The text says "for by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith" not "by faith are ye saved through grace." Grace is the cause not the consequence of both "saved" and "faith."

 

[The Archangel]

His argument was certainly most convincing, as I believe you even attested to. The text neither proves or disproves what you and Dr. Walter are trying to make it say, and if anything...your argument in that debate was the one not convincing. The irony is you do the very thing you accuse me of in your agreement with Dr. Walter and Piper.
While I respect your understanding of the greek, I believe JoJ's works in translation and experience with the language to be one of the best here...and not just because I agree with him, but based on his track record and having grown up around the language. I arrived at the same conclusion he did by simply reading the english with an open mind PRIOR to him even giving his input!

I certainly don't remember saying his argument was "convincing." I have a great amount of respect for John of Japan, that much is certain. However, his argument never dealt with the juxtaposition of the participle and the verb in that passage; he and others were quite dismissive of it.

While I might agree that either verb in 1 John 5:1 was inconclusive in and of itself, the combination of the two is quite clear, as I argued.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I have had five years of classroom Greek in college and Seminary and although that certainly does not make me a Greek scholar I am very familiar with Greek grammar. I understand the normal argument for simultaneous action of the present tense participle with the perfect tense verb but even following that argument there is clearly a logical sequence where new birth precedes believing just as in every other case this same grammatical structure is found in first John (1 Jn. 2:29; 4:7; etc.) where new birth logically precedes doing righteousness or loving.

Don't get me wrong Walter, I completely agree with you. I was the one arguing against John of Japan in the thread Webdog is referring to.

Again, the juxtaposition of the participle and the verb in that passage is what makes this interesting. If either the participle or the verb were there by themselves, it would not be as interesting or convincing. However, since John places them together, he is making a definite point in his choice of tense, etc. He is showing (in what I consider a grammatical slam-dunk) that regeneration precedes redemption.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Dr. Walter]

In I Jn 5:1 the pronoun "pas" is used twice in the same grammatical structure "pas o pisteuwn...gegennhtai" and "pas o agapwn ton geehsanta."

The term acting as the subject noun is not the participle in either phrase but the pronoun "pas." It is best to interpret the participles in both phrases as additional modifers of the pronoun just as both verbs modify the pronoun.

John of Japan knows this is the natural interpretation and that is why he only suggests that taking the participle to be the subject noun "is best" only in his opinion but not demanded.

This being the case, then it is proper to look at the tense relationships between the participles and the verb in their modifying role of the pronoun "pas." No honest exegesis of this text would fail to consider the same structures in 1 John 2:29; 4:7 as they precede this one. It is obvious that new birth precedes doing righteousness (2:29) and loving (4:7) and therefore new birth also logically precedes beleiving (5:1) as that is the only consistent interpretation of this structure by John. For John to use the same exact sentence structure in I Jn. 2:29 and 4:7 and assume his readers would conclude something different in the same use in 1 Jn. 5:1 is strange fiction.

The Greek language has always had a proper way to speak and read it and that has been determined by its prefix and suffix endings of nouns and verbs. Every language has natural laws that govern its use or else communication would be impossible. These laws may not have always been spelled out in a separate grammar book but they are inherent in the language for it to be a langauge at all. So the nonsensical statement there was no such thing as grammar 2000 years ago is about as logical as saying there was no such thing as human language 2000 years ago. The laws of language have been known and taught even if there were not written grammar books. If you doubt what I say, then try speaking the human language any way you please and see if you can communicate with another human being by the word order you randomly choose? Try saying the following and see if it makes any sense without putting these words in their proper order - proper order is grammatical use.

"lake jump the in go nonsense the this with"





pas o pisteuwn oti ihsouv estin o cristov ek tou yeou gegennhtai kai pas o agapwn ton gennhsanta agapa kai ton gegennhmenon ex autou

All the ones believing and all the ones loving are those who have been begotten.

 

[webdog]

All the ones believing and all the ones loving are those who have been begotten.

...yet the majority (if not all) of the modern english translations do not say this. Why is that? Also, you have not touched on how one can pass from spiritual death to spiritual life apart from Christ who is referred to as The Life.

 

[Dr. Walter]

...yet the majority (if not all) of the modern english translations do not say this. Why is that? Also, you have not touched on how one can pass from spiritual death to spiritual life apart from Christ who is referred to as The Life.

The Bible makes a distinction between the written or the spoken word of God by men and the Incarnate "Word" of God that is the "Amen" when He speaks. However, the written or spoken word does not produce what is written or spoken. The Bible makes a distinction between written revelation when read or spoken and received by the natural mind and revelation supernaturally conveyed by the Incarnate Word Himself.

When God Himself speaks the Word within a man something is CREATED within that person that was not previously there before:

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The words "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness" takes the reader back to Genesis 1:2-3:

darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

These were not mere spoken words but words infused by the CREATIVE POWER of God so that what was spoken was also EFFECTUAL in bringing to pass what was said. If you doubt that then you speak the same words in a dark room and see if anything happens. That is the difference between speaking in "word only" and speaking in "power...and in the Spirit".

Likewise, it is when God Himself as the Incarnate Word, the Amen speaks the gospel inside the darkened state of the sinner that His word comes in power...and in the Holy Spirit rather than "in word only" (1 Thes. 1:4-5) that supernatural LIGHT/LIFE is created revealed man and is EFFECTUAL in bringing that person to a saving KNOWLEDGE of Christ.

Notice in Ephesians 4:18 that spiritual death is defined as being ALIENATED FROM THE LIFE OF GOD THROUGH IGNORANCE THAT IS IN THEM. When God infuses the gospel words with POWER what is effectually CREATED in them is the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. This is the effectual call of the gospel (2 Thes. 2:13-14; I Cor. 1:26-31; Rom. 8:28-32; etc.). This is being quickened (Eph. 2:1,5) and is "the workmanship of God CREATED in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10).

This is giving a NEW HEART which is inherently a BELIEVING HEART when it is given. It does not become a believing heart but IS a believing heart that God gives. Therefore when God CREATES light/life/knowlege (Jn. 17:3) within the darkened/ignorant lost man He is one and the same time creating faith in Christ. There is no such person as an unregenerated believer in Christ or a regenerated unbeliever in Christ as divine quickening is producing the LIGHT/LIFE/KNOWELGE of saving faith in the sinner by God where previous that person was ALIENATED FROM THE LIFE OF GOD THROUGH IGNORANCE THAT IS IN THEM (Eph. 4:18).

 

[The Archangel]

To All:

Here is a very insightful and helpful article from Dr. Thomas Schreiner (a New Testament and Greek scholar of the first-order) on regeneration preceding redemption.

Click here for the article.

So, again, it is a grammatical slam-dunk as far as 1 John 5:1 goes.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Absolute nonsense there were no grammatical rules 2000 years ago.
MB

Herein lies the problem. Of course there were grammatical rules. If there weren't, there would be no translation of The Iliad or The Odyssey.

The fact of the matter is that language has rules--grammar--and those rules dictate how the words interact with one another. This is basic to communication.

Furthermore, what is communicated through language is not determined by the recipient (ie. the reader), but is determined by the author.

Therefore "what this passage means to me" is the absolute wrong question. The right question is this: What is the author saying, what is his main point.

To aid us in answering the question of authorial intent we follow rules--biblical hermeneutics. One of the most important things in the science of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is to read the original languages according to their own inherent grammatical rules.

To deny grammar is to condemn every language to being nothing more than jibberish and to apply the tyranny of the reader to everything read.

The Archangel

 

[Dr. Walter]

To All:

Here is a very insightful and helpful article from Dr. Thomas Schreiner (a New Testament and Greek scholar of the first-order) on regeneration preceding redemption.

Click here for the article.

So, again, it is a grammatical slam-dunk as far as 1 John 5:1 goes.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Good article! He makes the same argument that I do and he has the qualifications to stand behind his exegesis.

 

[Jerome]

So is there any other place in Greek literature that this uber-significant grammatical construction can be found?

 

[The Archangel]

So is there any other place in Greek literature that this uber-significant grammatical construction can be found?

Well, that would depend. Are you wanting to know about Attic (or classical) Greek or in Koine Greek?

I'll say that I don't know about Attic Greek and I haven't searched the entire New Testament for similar constructions (outside of 1 John). There are many in 1 John as the Schreiner article points out and 1 John is the most instructive as to how we should interpret that construction since the book is itself a single unit.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Good article! He makes the same argument that I do and he has the qualifications to stand behind his exegesis.

I wish I had access to this article (written 3/1/10) back when this discussion was going on in early February.

But, it is certain, Schreiner is a scholar second-to-none. I have enjoyed talking to him on occasion and he is very kind and helpful.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

To All:

Here is a very insightful and helpful article from Dr. Thomas Schreiner (a New Testament and Greek scholar of the first-order) on regeneration preceding redemption.

Click here for the article.

So, again, it is a grammatical slam-dunk as far as 1 John 5:1 goes.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Thank you Archangel. I saved that to file.

 

[webdog]

To All:

Here is a very insightful and helpful article from Dr. Thomas Schreiner (a New Testament and Greek scholar of the first-order) on regeneration preceding redemption.

Click here for the article.

So, again, it is a grammatical slam-dunk as far as 1 John 5:1 goes.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I really see nothing from that article that is any different than the arguments put forth here. I cannot understand how such a learned person can call that "grammatical slam-dunk"...more grammatical half court shot with the clock running down

 

[Jerome]

So is there any other place in Greek literature that this uber-significant grammatical construction can be found?

Well, that would depend. Are you wanting to know about Attic (or classical) Greek or in Koine Greek?

I'll say that I don't know about Attic Greek and I haven't searched the entire New Testament for similar constructions (outside of 1 John).

Seems like that should be done before making pronouncements about the purported significance of the construction. Did any of the vaunted Greek scholars bother to do that?

 

[The Archangel]

Seems like that should be done before making pronouncements about the purported significance of the construction. Did any of the vaunted Greek scholars bother to do that?

Not so fast. Grammar is grammar and the rules of grammar are what they are. The rules of Greek grammar dictate exactly what my exegetical work in the passage suggest: Regeneration is preceding redemption. That Schreiner's exegesis agrees with mine is interesting since you have me--a non-scholar--and Schreiner--a world-renowned scholar--agreeing independent of one another.

Again, the difference in Attic and Koine Greek is, to my knowledge, not in the grammar, but in the vocabulary. For example, words have different nuanced meanings in the Koine period. A way to put this into our English terms is this: The King's English had different definitions for some words than what that word may mean in modern American English.

So, again, the Grammar is the grammar.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I really see nothing from that article that is any different than the arguments put forth here. I cannot understand how such a learned person can call that "grammatical slam-dunk"...more grammatical half court shot with the clock running down

Hmmm...only if there is the sound of stunned silence as the ball pours through the rim, hitting nothing but net.

The Archangel