Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

It is the Aorist tense that demands new birth was an already completed action. The term "born" represents the Aorist tense.

In relationship with that Aorist tense birth, "beleiveth" is present tense. Wallace is simply saying that the present tense cannot be used to define the beginning or ending of the action of beleiving and it does not. It is the Aorist tense "born" that determines the new birth was already a completed action. In relationship with the present tense "beleiveth" which is CONTINUOUS ACTION the logical order is new birth as a completed action in contrast to believeth as a present incomplete action.

The same construction is used four other times by John in this epistle. We are loving God because we have been born of God. We are doing good works because we have been born of God. We are believing in Christ because we have been born of God. The very same identical construction is found in the following verses:

1 Jn. 4:7 ¶ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth (present tense participle) is born (Aorist tense verb) of God, and knoweth God.

[/COLOR]1 Jn. 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness (present tense pariciple) is born (Aorist tense verb) of him.


1 Jn. 5:1 ¶ Whosoever believeth(present tense participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (Aorist tense verb) of God:

You are not doing righteousness IN ORDER to be born of God
You are not loving IN ORDER to be born of God
You are not beleiving IN ORDER to be born of God

If you insist 1 Jn. 5:1 demands believing IN ORDER TO be born of God then you equally have to demand doing righteouness is necessary IN ORDER TO be born of God, etc.

 

You are right, I was depending on memory. However, the perfect tense is stronger than the Aorist in regard to completed action. It not only demands a completed action but one that was completed at a point in the past and stands complete right up to the present. Both Aorist and Perfect tenses are completed action.

So you still have the same problem!

1. Do people do righteousness IN ORDER to have been born of God?

2. Do people love IN ORDER TO have been born of God?

If not, then neither do people "believe" IN ORDER TO have been born of God!

 

In Greek grammar tenses emphasize kind of action more than kind of time. When preceding action is the point being made, the writer uses completed action terms in contrast to incompleted action verbs. When no contrast is intended the writer uses either the same tenses to show identical incompleted action or identical completed action.

John chooses to show a contrast in in 1 John 2:29; 1 Jn. 4:7 as it is obvious doing righteous works do not precede being born again. Neither does loving God precede being born again. The same exact grammar is found in 1 Jn. 5:1 and John 5:24.

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes (present tense) him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over (perfect tense) from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

John uses three tenses here in contrast to each other. Present tense "believeth"! The future tense "shall not come into condemnation"! The perfect tense "passed from death unto life"!

The perfect tense is placed in direct contrast to the future tense. Because regeneration is a completed action at specific point in the past and continues as a completed action in the present therefore there is no reversal in the future from life to death -condemnation.

The present tense "believeth" does not convey beginning or ending points but the perfect tense does convey a beginning point and it is with the new birth - passed from death to life.

If your theory were correct he would have used a perfect tense verb joined with a present tense verb (periphrastic construct) for believeth and only an Aorist tense verb for "passed from death unto life."

 

Faith is a Fruit of the Spirit

Faith is a result , a fruit of havinbg been born of the Spirit Gal 5:22

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

The word fruit is the greek word karpos and means:

that which originates or comes from something, an effect, result

a) work, act, deed

It is a deed of the Spirit, God the Holy Spirit effects Faith Jn 6:29


29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work[ or effect] of God[The Holy Spirit], that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Phil 2:13

13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

In order to believe, one must hear God's words, and only those of God, born of Him, Heareth God's Words Jn 8:47

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Faith is a result of hearing, so that confirms that New Birth is before Faith or believing...

 

Wrong! You are failing to read him correctly. Note the words "Including of course"! What is being included as "in progress"??

ANSWER: what is included as being "in progress" is not only both sides of the present moment but "the present moment" as well! All three aspects are included as "in progress"!

 

Biblicist asks the following questions to Jerry. here are my responses to his questions and his conclusion.

HP: God accounts their faith as righteousness, and because faith is indeed an act of the will in a sense they do what is required of God ( which is righteousness, or right actions in accordance to the commands of God) for something to be declared righteous by Him.

HP: Love always involves obedience. When a sinner acts obediently in faith, that is indeed an act of love and benevolence towards the commands of God and God Himself, so I would again say, yes in a sense they do show love towards God antecedent to salvation.

HP: But that is precisely where you are wrong and your conclusion built on sand. God commands them to believe in order to be saved in spite of your 'straining gnats and swallowing camels' approach to the GK text. The new birth is a result of God regenerating the heart 'as a result of' man fulfilling Gods conditions he set forth. Bear in mind that all the requirements God demands of man are NOT meritorious in nature and are NOT the grounds of their salvation. Every requirement of God is thought of in the sense of not without which, NOT that for the sake of, as clearly pointed out in the illustration of the man receiving a pardon.

 

Ephesians 2:10 repudiates your whole interpretation "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" Hence, good works do not precede new birth but are the product of new birth.

 

You quote him and then MISINTERPRET what he says! He is not saying that "in progress" or "duration" of present tense can only occur on one side of the present moment but not the other side of the present moment! That is aburd!

The present tense never indicates a beginning or ending point and that is exactly what he is saying. Because the present tense does not indicate a beginning point it is necessarily in progress before the present moment or otherwise it would indidate a beginning point before the present moment. Because the present tense does not indicate an ending point it is in progress after the present moment or otherwise it would indicate an ending point after the present moment.

 

I will try one last time to present the proper argument that your Greek scholar is saying and yet you are misinterpreting his words.

Because the present tense does not indicate either a beginning point in the past, or a terminating point in the future, IT IS NECESSARY that BOTH prior and future to the "present moment" that BOTH are "durative" OR "in progress."

Why? Because if PRIOR to the "present moment" it was not durative then it would necessarly supply a BEGINNING POINT - hence, prior to the "present moment" it must be progressive OR durative OR in progress as well.

Because if AFTER the "present moment" it was NOT durative OR in progress OR incomplete action then it would necessarily include an ENDING point.

Now, notice my repeated use of "or" when I said "durative OR in progress"!!! Am I making a contrast or am I making both inclusive of the same point????

I am making BOTH inclusive of the same point and that is how your Greek scholar is using the term "or"!

BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROPER USE OF THE PRESENT TENSE YOU IMPROPERLY INTERPRET JOHN 5:25 TO MEAN SOMETHING IT IS NOT.

I have give you the proper interpretation and you have yet to respond to it and show why it is grammatically incorrect. Why should I do it all over again when you simply ignore the evidence placed in your face???

Do I mean it must be only one OR the other as in contrast OR do I mean I am repeated the same thing in different terms

 

Have you had any training in Greek whatsoever? I have had several years of classroom training in Greek. Not boasting at all. Just fact.

How can we discuss the present tense used in 1 Jn. 5:1 or John 5:24 or in John 20:30-31 when you don't even understand what your own authority is defining it to be???????????

 

Yep. That was sure "plain n simple".....:laugh: