Regeneration Necessary to Faith in Old Testament Period?

[Guest]

In 1 John 5:1 you are just not wanting to see what is there. It doesn't matter what you think, it is what John says. He makes a TEMPORAL distinction between being born and the belief. You have to deal with the language and you have to humble yourself to what the language says bro.

Though John uses very simple Greek, it is amazingly deep and VERY concise.
And what John says especially at the beginning of a chapter (or I should say there are important reasons why the translators put a chapter break in where they did) is because John is making a VERY important statement that is backed up in an argumentative form. And those statements are usually VERY complex and FULL of diverse meanings with VERY much thought in the way they are put together. God doesn't just put in "filler", each WORD should be analyzed. John 1:1 is a prime example. And so also is 1 John 5:1.

John builds the whole chapter on the first verse. This doesn't mean that you can ignore what is being said by the fist, actually it puts an emphasis on understanding the complexity of it, again John 1:1 for an example.

God is very complex and intertwines things grammatically so that you can understand statements in a way that you know what John is saying, and IN the way he uses the grammar it RESTRICTS you from being able to take things in another way.

Part of proper exegesis is asking WHY. In 1 John 5:1 if he wasn't making a temporal point why didn't he use the PRESENT tense of the verb for born of God? Why in verse 4 did John again use the perfect tense for born of God and in the very NEXT verse use believe AGAIN in the present? John is building a syllogism in 4 and 5. The result of overcoming the world is evidence that you believe in Jesus Christ the result of the belief in Jesus Christ is HAVING BEEN born of God. Thus his opening argument is the basis; Those who have been born of God overcomes the world. so John at the end of verse 5 is saying in the grammar that if you don't overcome the world you haven't been born of God.

You were BORN of God BEFORE belief. That's what it says.

[Guest]

If you are currently a believer you have been born of God (sometime in the past).

Hi Sean,

Is this true at the first moment of belief? Or is 1 John 5:1 true in some situations and false in others? I've asked both Troy and Butch, but neither has answered yet.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

"If you are currently a believer you have been born of God (sometime in the past)."

You are now changing the implied meaning of what John said. Be careful in misusing Scripture.

It isn't SOMETIME in the past with no reference. The reference is clearly stated in the verse. You are born again before BELIEVING. Now the belief is "sometime in the past" and the reference to that isn't given because everybody believes in different "times" thus the reference isn't given.

But the reference to WHEN God regenerated believers is given, namely before belief. It is a simple indicative statement.

[Guest]

It should be clarified that when we ask, "Is faith prior to or subsequent to regeneration?" we are not talking about a temporal order, but a logical order. Faith and regeneration happen simultaneously, but the question is, "Which precipitates the other" or "Which is the condition for the other?" The sun and the rays of the sun came into existence at precisely the same moment, but the former is the cause of the latter, as anyone can easily see.

It is nonsensical to ask, "Is there a believer who has not yet been regenerated?" or "Is there a regenerated person who does not yet believe?" The relevant question is, "Does regeneration take place because of faith, or vice versa?"

Sean hasn't changed anything John said. He (unlike our Calvinist friends) is simply explaining the meaning of 1 John 5:1 in the context of the book's universally acknowledged theme—namely, the unmistakable marks of salvation. It is not relevant to John's point to ask, "Did initial faith precede regeneration." His point is, "What signs distinguish the regenerate person and demonstrate that he is a son of God?"

One of John's answers (given several times in the book) is that a regenerate person is distinguished from others by his orthodox christology. A true Christian is distinguished from a false one (actually, from "antichrist"), for example, by believing that Jesus is the Christ (2:22-23; 5:1), that He has come in the flesh (4:2-3), and that He is the Son of God (4:15). Nothing in any of these verses is describing the phenomenon or source of initial faith at the moment of conversion. They are describing the settled theological convictions of certain people—convictions that distinguish them as Christians, not heretics.

To miss this obvious meaning of John's words would require that one not really attempt to study 1 John with a mind to understand John's meaning, but to simply comb through the book looking for proof-texts for a doctrine—whether they really work for that purpose or not.

[Guest]

J.Edwards,

I think your Calvinist blinders will not allow you to see 1 John 5:1 in any other way than you see it. (Let me know if you do not know what blinders are and I will explain; horses wear them.)

Let us compare another statement John makes a few verses earlier. It is in exactly the same form in the Greek, a present participle followed by a perfect indicative passive:

1 John 4:7 (New King James)
7. ...... and everyone who loves (present participle) is born (perfect indicative passive) of God and knows God.

1 John 5:1 (New King James Version)

1. Whoever believes (present participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (perfect indicative passive) of God.......

Now it is your contention that being born of God in 5:1 was necessary before their believing, and indeed, they could not possibly, even momentarily, believe prior to this. If you are correct, then by your same application of Greek grammer, no one could possibly, even momentarily, love others before being born of God. I hope you will not maintain this is true. Consider Jesus' words:

Luke 6:32 (New King James Version)

32. “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.


Hmmm. Sinners loving before being born of God? What was Jesus thinking! Johns' Greek (and your exegesis) will not allow for this!

I do not think the Apostle John had the order of salvation in his mind at all.

[Guest]

If you are currently a believer you have been born of God (sometime in the past).

Hi Sean,

Is this true at the first moment of belief? Or is 1 John 5:1 true in some situations and false in others? I've asked both Troy and Butch, but neither has answered yet.

Cheers,
Bob

Steve has answered the point.

Besides, I believe your view would contradict the other "born again" passage that does talk about the order of salvation, John chapter 3. John 3, as I pointed out in my previous post would be nonsense if those who look on Christ already have been regenerated. Why would one need to believe on Him in order not to perish if the believing one was not going to perish anyway because of their regeneration? (Since their regeneration was an act of God meant to be completed)

You could claim that belief is the outward act of an inward change, but the passage says that those who believe shall not perish, not those who are born again will not perish.

Jesus stated that you must be born of the Spirit. I think the scripture declares that the Holy Spirit is given after or at the same time as belief is expressed.

Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

[Guest]

To say that John didn't have this in mind because it isn't the main focus of the context is completely running away from proper exegesis. You are just ignoring what the text says.

I can then say that John 1:1 doesn't prove that Jesus is one in the trinity because "that's not what John had in mind" in the chapter. The grammar shows the unity in being and the separation in person ONLY in the construct of the language. You are simply not wanting to accept this easy grammatical point John made. It's what the texts is TELLING you what it means to go outside of this is eisegesis.

Homer your argument fails because you do not see the difference between a Godly love for people that can ONLY be done by one who is born of God and a sinful love that unbelievers have. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. The unbelievers love is not of faith, they have no faith, their love is sinful. ALL of our works is as filthy rags.

Thus you only shown my exegesis is consistent.

And your argument totally destroys what John is arguing. What is the evidence that you have been born of God? That you LOVE? And your arguing that unbelievers .... love? You have just proven by 1 John 4:7 is that the unbelievers are then born of God because they love. I don't think you want to say that.

Hence John is making a distinction between the unregenerate's love from that of the believer and the difference is being born of God. AND that of course happens BEFORE you believe which perfectly parallels the same writers verse in the very next chapter.

If you can ask ANYBODY who knows Greek EVEN modern Greek to read these two verses. They will tell you that it is very easy to understand.