Regeneration does precede Redemption

Green's Literal Translation has 1 John 5:1 as:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. And everyone who loves Him who begets also loves the one who has been born of Him.

Young's Literal Translation has 1 John 5:1 as:

Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him:

The RSV Interlinear Greek English New Testament by Alfred Marshall has 1 John 5:1 as:

Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ of God has been begotten and everyone loving the [one] begetting loves the [one] having been begotten of him.

These particular translators appear to agree with Archangel. And though I don't read Greek and, therefore am not a translator, I also agree with Archangel. Surprise! Surprise!:godisgood::jesus:

 

Well, I am not surprised in the least that you agree with Archangel. But all of the verses you show still mention believing first.

What did Paul tell the Philipian jailer?

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Now, how in the world could Paul tell the Philipian jailer to believe??

And how can any Calvinist or Doctrine of Gracer tell a person how to be saved? According to your doctrine a man can do absolutely nothing to be saved, but is totally dependent on God to regenerate him to have the ability to believe.

Paul should have answered for the Philipian jailer to do nothing whatsoever, and if he was fortunate enough to be one of the elect God would regenerate him. And if he was truly honest he would have had to tell the Philipian jailer that he couldn't be sure if that would ever happen or not.

 

"all the ones believing Jesus is the Christ from God has been born". How does that prove pre-faith regeneration? How is this any different than saying "all the ones in my church believing Jesus is the Christ from God have been born again". There is no linear order of events therein, only stating a fact...that those who have faith have been born again. That is simultaneous regeneration.

 

I still don't see it pointing to a linear order of details, but stating a certain fact that those who are believing (noun) have been born again (verb)

 

No, because I'm not approaching it with the presupposition of trying to prove just that. Allan has provided an alternate theological view that has not been "thwarted" using the same clear grammar of the Greek.

 

This is not showing a first cause or a chronology. You are torturing the text.

It is simple: Believers have been born of God. It's making a point that true believers are of God vs. those who sin and don't love their brothers, which is what he's arguing off and on and 1 John.

 

The text is plain - it is not saying that one believes because one has been born of God. It says that those who believe have been born of God.

It's an identification. I don't know how else to 'splain it.

 

First, I hope things are going well for you and yours brother. My appologies for not getting back but I'm sure you understand the fact of other pressing matters.

Second, I wish to 'try' to keep my answers simplified so others can follow along, though I most likely will fall short . So please understand I am not talking down to you (which I doubt you would) but if there is some clarificaiton you need me to be more technical on, let know so I can elaborate. Sometimes making something simpler is not as easy as it sounds :laugh:

Ok, with all that said - let's start with what I bolded above in your post - why?
I don't disagree that it is a statement of fact but that does not negate the verb for 'believing' as being both current and continuous. However I believe it should also be noted that in the Greek our faith or 'believing' is often used in the continuous tense without emphasis on a fixed past point and a one time action, or completed action. Thus, as far as I can tell, the grammer does not preclude the continuous intent of the verb nor does the 'perfect tense' in the passage imply a chronology of the between the noun and verb - as in, this-then-that. However I believe the context establishes this 'continuous tense' for the one who is currently 'believing'.

Another important note which I just alluded to is with regard to the surrounding context about the 'life' of the believer. The context of chapter 4 and the succeding verses after 5:1, speaks not to an instant or moment but to the continuous actions of the one(s) 'born of God', illistrated in both loving, and believing. Thus it appears from the context this also establishes my premise that John is speaking to believers about identifying themselves and others as 'true' believers verses those who merely gvie intellectual assent. We also see John gives to his readers the exact purpose of his writting the epistle - so that those who believe might know they have eternal life/eternal salvation. - not having 'just' believed but this is for 'all' who have believed.

I have no issue here, as it doesn't change my point.

There is nothing particularly wrong with what you are saying here as I agree with what you have written - as is. I agree "The result of God's past action which carries on into the present is that people currently believe that Jesus is the Christ", but the difference we are having is where the emphasis lies in that statement. As shown I believe, and as you illistrated in your own statement above, that being 'born' is not 'resulting in' believing, but the fact that because of this past action these people are currently believing, not just now believing. Again context. To whom is John writing and for what purpose?

We know it is to believers. And we know it is so thost believers can know they 'have' eternal life by examining 'their life' - the continuation of a certain condition which is maintained due to being born of God, not resulting 'from' being born.

You haven't actaully shown this brother.
Is it not true that in the Greek our faith or better 'believing' is often used in the continuous tense without emphasis on a fixed past point and a one time action, or completed action? And as such is it not used most often in the same manner as as in 1 John 5:1 as present tense or currently believing.

Now you're bringing presupposition into the text. Note that 'this rendering' is decidedly distinct from your previous one stated a few sentences prior. (thoug I'm sure you will accert they are pretty much the same)
See what I mean:
1. The result of God's past action which carries on into the present is that people currently believe that Jesus is the Christ
2. The ones God has "borned" in the past are now, as a result of God's action, believing

Your first one is closer to the Greek text and your second one is not.
The text does not warrent the incertion of 'resulting in' as it does not make any such allusions from the grammer nor the surrounding context, at least in my opinion, and it is through both we obtain the authur's intent.

As I said, this is not just 'my view' (that the passage does not give a chronology nor does it state/allude to regeneration preceding faith) but is the view held by many reputable Greek scholars. Thus the truth is, this verse can be seen in two distinctly different ways depending on the where one presumes the emphasis lies in it's translation, and apparently due to the nature of the text and grammatical wording this passage either view 'can be' a valid way of interpreting passage. (though of course not to the other side)

Therefore I am of the opinion that in order to properly know when regenerations happens, we must first state what it does and 'HOW' it does this by comparing it with scripture. This passage of itself isn't definitive enough to base or establish any doctrine upon much less a teaching on the chronological order of regeneration and faith.

 

Matthew 8:6
and saying, Lord, my servant has been laid in the house a paralytic, being grievously tormented.

The key words here are "had been laid" and "being grievously tormented".
Had been laid is a perfect passive verb.
Being grievously tormented is a a present passive participle.

The Greek passive means that someone else is doing the action (e.g. the subject is not acting on himself or herself). The perfect tense tells us that this is an action completed in the past with lasting effect into the present.

So, what the master is saying is this: My servant is grievously tormented because he has been laid down--being laid down is something that was done to him in the past.

This, perhaps, is the most clear argument for not taking sick days ever. Because when one takes a sick day, one gets sick.
Also never take a snow day, or it will snow.

It's all about the tenses.

The grammatical structure seems to be iron-clad.

Word!

 

I haven't had time to read through this whole thread, but my wife is a greek tutor and really has no dog in this fight...meaning she doesn't get into the doctrinal debates over Cal/Arm so I knew she would give me an objective answer. She said...

The grammar could imply regeneration precedes faith. Yet, the grammar can also imply that regeneration is a present and continuing reality for a believer. In this case, faith is the means for regeneration. In short, she said, its just like it is in English, in that it could be taken either way. It doesn't tell us enough to base any "iron clad" doctrine upon.

Plus, I was reminded that hermenuetics always forces us (1) allow scripture to help interpret scripture and (2) look at the apparent intent of the author.

(1) Regeneration is act of being made alive or born again or raised to life, agreed?

So, how do you reconcile these verses?

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins

WE ARE RAISED WITH HIM THROUGH FAITH. Clearly faith is the mean's through which we are raised to life.

John 20:31
But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.

Scripture is written so that you may believe and by believing we may have LIFE! Life comes through faith.

John 6:40
This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day."

Eternal life begins at regeneration and its clear from this text life come to those who first believe.

(2) It appear the author is simply attempting to communicate how you can know something that is unseen (spiritual birth) by observing that which is seen (good works). It is very unlikely that he had the whole "Cal/Arm regeneration preceeds faith argument" in mind. He simply means to communicate, "the proof is in the pudding." "A good tree bears good fruit." End of story.

 

Exactly. But when I listed several verses that clearly show faith precedes regeneration Archangel insulted me. He is not interested in those verses because he can not possibly twist them to achieve the outcome he wants. He likes this verse because it can "possibly" mean what he wants it to say. But when you compare it with many other verses on the same topic it is easy to show faith comes before regeneration.

I watched John Piper's video and the first thing he said was he "struggled with this for years". Why? If it is so clear that regeneration precedes faith it should be easy to show in scripture. This is the only verse he could find that can be tortured to "possibly" show it.

But those who believe faith precedes regeneration can easily show many verses to prove it. Quite a few have been shown already.