Regeneration does precede Redemption

It is not me cherry picking, it is you. This is the only verse you can possibly wrest to hopefully prove regeneration comes before faith. There are many verses that show faith comes before regeneration, I showed some, Skandelon showed some.

You are the very one guilty of doing what you accuse me of. Scripture should always be used to interpret scripture as Skandelon pointed out. That is what I was doing.

I know why John Piper struggled for years with this, because he found many verses that contradict Calvinism, and none that support it. Go back and watch your video again.

 

I'll post a little later tonight (maybe 11'ish for me - it is 9:30 right now) as I need to head off to work.

But I do have some responses (rubbing hands together and smiling mischieviously).

Also what Skandelon's wife said is what I was speaking to previously about how the passage, grammatically, can be, and is, seen two different ways because it isn't iron-clad.

 

You forgot the Blessings.

 

I wrote a response but because the wireless connection here sometimes just freezes up (I'm in a basement apt), I was unable to post it.

I know there are contrary views to this, so it's not like a proof-text for your claim.

No, I don't like the snow at all! It keeps me from going places, it's scary to drive in, and I've missed lots of church because of it - about 5 Sundays already, and will probably miss this Sunday as well.

 

The grammar is plain in that it can be taken two ways. :tongue3: If the grammar were that clear that it supports your view, there would not be contrary views.

This was explained in a previous post, so I don't need to do it.

I dread the snow this weekend - yet again. Except for Tuesday, all the snowfalls have been on Friday and/or Saturdays, making me miss church on Sunday. I missed it last Sunday and am sure I will miss this Sunday, though my church never has cancelled a service due to weather. I'll be stuck here a least 3 or 4 days after the snow. I wondered where you were in MD - yep, you probably will get more than us.

 

Analysis of 1 John 5v1​

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
paV o pisteuwn oti ihsouV estin o cristoV ek tou qeou gegennhtai kai paV o agapwn ton gennhsanta agapa kai ton gegennhmenon ex autou

I have been asked by a participant on this thread to weigh in here, since I am a Greek teacher and a translator. So I’ll analyze this verse, but before doing so I want to point out that I almost never participate in the Cal/Arm discussions on the BB. So I’m weighing as a favor to a friend, and don’t plan to spend much time here, though I’ll answer any questions about my Greek analysis.

First of all, consider the substantival use of the participle (using the participle as a noun) for “to believe”, o pisteuwn. It is best to just think of this as a noun, since it is after all the subject of the sentence. Brooks and Winbury say, “The participle, like an adjective, may be used in the place of a noun or other substantive. The participle itself then functions as a noun” (Syntax of NT Greek, p. 130). Daniel Wallace doesn’t mention this particular verse, but comments on a similar structure: “The aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it. Thus, for example, o baptizwn in Mark 1:4 does not mean ‘the one who continually baptizes” but simply ‘the baptizer.’ Indeed, it cannot mean this in Mark 6:14, for otherwise John would be baptizing without a head” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 620—love that humor!).

I won’t take time to explain the current debate in Greek circles on verbal aspect and aktionsart, which is pretty complicated (and my son is much more up on that than I am). But I do believe that here, the tense and verbal aspect of the present participle (Is the action continuative? Is it present?) have little play. If John were a 21st century American writing in English when he wrote 1 John, he would have simply said, “Every believer…,” since there is no Greek noun meaning simply “believer.” You have to use the participle for “to believe” in koine Greek.

To relate this to the current discussion, I don’t see how 1 John has anything to do with the order of salvation. I think John would be surprised to read this thread! He was simply saying, “Hey, if someone is a believer in Jesus as the Christ, they’ve been born again!” And of course it is God Who did it, but looking at the grammar, there is nothing in this verse that will prove that regeneration comes before faith.

I don’t think there is a need here for me to comment on the verb tenses for “born again.” To me they are irrelevant to the argument on the order of salvation once the substantival use of the participle is understood—the participle as noun.

Oh, and by the way, you guys with your snow talk are all wimps. We’ve had 14 feet so far this winter in Asahikawa! (Think a Japanese version of Siberia.) Nothing to it! :tongue3:

God bless.

 

First, I want to appologize for taking so long to post this. My night has been exceedingly crazy and very busy.

Sweeeet!

Also, I asked in my previous post regarding 'why' you think the participle (believing) does not refer or allude to as present and continous, or on going action, and was still curious as to your answer on this?

I realize that it is not itself in this case 'a verb', I was meaning to speak more to the verb tense(s) of which the word (believing) is used to describe the object/subject (the ones).

Exactly, yet according to the grammer we see they are 'already' in a state of belief, illistrating my point about their believing has a past inherent to it's meaning of which is a present reality now.

I am not saying that either. I am saying you are placing the juxtaposition of 'being born' against 'believing', to try to illistrate chronology. However I do not believe that is the purpose of the perfect tense in this case. While I agreee it 'can' show chronology at times, this I believe, is not one of them.
It is not a 'this-then-that' passage but is a snapshot of the reality of the 'current condition'of the noun in question.

Just a minor point of clarification on 'continuing in'. The implication of condition the noun is currently in illistrates 1. they are 'already' believing showing a past point of action and also will in fact continue.

IOW - It is not that being born 'resulted' in their their believing but that the state of noun's current condition (beleiving) is a fact due to or because of their having been born.

Agreed - it forms the state or condition of the noun.

No agruement here either. To believe does not cause one to be regenerate, we believe God and it is His will to regenerate/save us. Us believing does not obligate God to do anything, but God obligates Himself in that He desires and decreed to save those of faith. Thus faith is not the cause of our regeneration, faith is our obedient responce to the gospel truth. Regeneration is not God responding to mans demand but God reaching down to help the man crying out for mercy because He has believed the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is His choice to save and His choice to regenerate, man is passive in action of regeneration.

Again, I agree with what is stated above - but your emphasis here is on causation of believing, of which I don't see the Greek grammer insinuating . I see the emphasis of the grammer speaking of the subject-verb relationship regarding the nouns 'current state of being' due to verb - not causation but to the noun's current condition.

This can be seen two ways. Since you are writing the sentence you can state your intent but another easily forseeable perspective regarding your sentense is that it isn't showing 'how' they got in but 'why' they were currently there.

Getting the tickets did not result in bringing them tothe Super Bowl.
However their current attendance at the Super Bowl is the result of getting the tickets.

Isn't it though? You are stating that being born from God is the causation of/for believing. Thus because of God's past action ...SHAZAM!!!...at that moment you become a believer. Otherwise do you believe man can be regenerate for long periods of time?
I must be missing something in what you are saying here.

Then why are you arguing that being born of God is the causation of believing or as the OP states - Regeneration Does precede redemption (salvation).

It may be that you are not 'technically' makeing the argument that believing is not refering to the person became a believers, however this is the end result of your argument regarding being born as the causation of their believing.

I know you don't believe in being saved apart from faith nor do you believe that regeneration is by God through faith. Thus there is only one logical place where faith can be placed in your view // regeneration - faith - redemption. Therefore being born of God resulted in their believing and thus in their being saved/redemption.

Acatully, I'm using your words brother. But in any case, I disagree with you regarding the grammer that being born does not mean 'resulting in' their believing.

That is a bit of a tall order even for you brother. Those scholars are such because their understanding and skill far excedes both your, mine and maybe another one or two others wrapped up all together on here. It is apparently not as clear as you apparently think it is.

Again I agree and do not dispute that the reason they are currently still the believing ones is due to being born again. It is the very doctrine of the preservation of the saints.

Uh..mmm... I have looked at many a commentary since yesterday evening, and the only ones I can find that speak to your conclusion are all reformed. And yes, John R. W. Scott is VERY reformed (conservitive reformed as he calls himself) and is a quite the reformed authur of many books.

But I can also find commentarries that do not agree with your conclusions so I'm wondering.. are all your commentaries on the Greek usage reformed?

I think I 'over' simplified my point and it confused you about my argument. However being perfect passive does nothing to change my argument.

See, this is reading a just a bit more into the text that it is allowing for.

 

When Ephesians 1:13 says you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, it did not mean you were just then given the Holy Spirit. The word you see rendered "sealed" is the greek word sphragizo. Sphragizo means to set one's seal to for these reasons: to mark a person or a thing or to confirm authenicate or place beyond doubt something.

It is used in the following ways:

John 3:33 - "He that receiveth this testimony hath set to his seal that God is true."

John 6:27 - "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." Obviously it here means certified or authenticated.

2 Cor. 1:22 - "Who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Pretty much a parallel of Ephesians 1:13.

This word comes from the root word sphragis which was used to describe was circumcision was to Moses in Romans 4:11 - a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised. A seal of something that already was, a certificate or authentication of a present reality.

Your belief is a seal, a certificate, something that authenticates to you that you are indeed a child of God. That's exactly what the scriptures say elsewhere. 3 times in John it says, "whosoever believeth hath everlasting life." It didn't say whosoever will believe shall receive, it says those that believe already have it. Belief cannot be both the root cause of gaining everlasting life and the evidence, or authenticating certificate, of it. You had everlasting life before you believed, but when you believed you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance.

 

Wow.. talk about ripping the scriptures apart. The above has no basis from/in scripture neither in context nor the original languages.


Primarily I am refering to your specific reference in that we are eternally saved before we believe.
This renedering is not even 'close' to scriptures intent/meaning.

 

Wow, I learned something new.
It appears I might possibly be over analyzing the text.

It comes out to what I am saying just not as intricate as I was making it
Oops.

 

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
Verily, verilly I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

What do those verses state? The believer is presently in a born again state and presently possesses everlasting life. Their belief is a seal, a certificate, evidence of the fact that God has born them from above and given unto them everlasting life. Thus does Paul say after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. You won't find a single text that will tell you that regeneration is brought about by belief, but rather the reverse is true, belief is the result and evidence of regeneration.

 

If you would like to start another thread on people having eternal life prior to/before believing - then go right ahead. However this thread isn't dealing with such nor is it the view of Archangel, the originator of the thread, who is arguing for regeneration preceding redemption/eternal life.

 

Thanks for participating, JoJ! The strange thing is, not having a command of the Greek like Arch ,Allan or yourself, I came to that same conclusion from just reading the English with an open mind :laugh: