Regeneration Necessary to Faith in Old Testament Period?

[Guest]

Good, so is born is acceptable. Glad to see you feel that is a fine translation. However, I don't see how I'm tilting at windmills. Perhaps J.Edwards did not know that is born is a preferable translation. If he did, one can only wonder why he quoted a less preferable tranlation. Could it be out of desperation? Surely it wasn't an attempt to be more persuasive in believing the calvinist contention.

Hi Troy,

J. Edwards wasn't offering a creative re-translation (like some here have tried with Acts 13:48). He was highlighting for you the completed aspect of the action from the perfect tense.

This might surprise you, but I actually like your analogy. It fits well with what I have presented above. Saying this does raise the question as to whether you actually read my whole post or if you understood what I was saying, because if you did, you wouldn't accuse me of "having us read the verse as "is born as a result of that belief", or "is born subsequent to belief." Nice strawman bshow. What I said, was that I think it is pretty obvious that this verse was not written to comprehend an order of what comes first in salvation. Instead, I think that it fits the main focus of the theme of the whole letter, which deals with the evidence of a genuine believer. There are three tests that I see that John reveals in this latter in which one must pass to confirm one actually knows God. He must believe Jesus is the Christ, keep Christ's commandments, and must love the brethren. It would follow from this that the scope of 1 John 5:1 comprehends the test that one must believe that Jesus is the Christ. A proof text for irresistable grace [the order of the process of salvation] is not in John's scope of writing the verse at hand, because John did not believe that regeneration precedes faith.

Reread my above post and see that the perfect tense fits well with Steve's comments on the verse. Come to the light!

No, your comments and Steve's comments amount to a lot of hand-waving and side trails. The concluding statement (yours, I think, or is it Steves?) gets to the point, and supports my accusation of how you would have us read 1 Jn 5:1:

If a man may believe for an instant, it seems, he might, in that instant, turn to God and be regenerated by the grace of God (which comes "through faith" Eph.2:8; Rom.5:2).

If that's true, then 1 Jn 5:1 would not be true at that instant of first belief. The verse does supply the order.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

J. Edwards wasn't offering a creative re-translation (like some here have tried with Acts 13:48 ). He was highlighting for you the completed aspect of the action from the perfect tense.

Even if he was highlighting the completed aspect of the action[s] from the perfect tense, one still wonders why he would go with a less preferable translation with the knowledge that his translation is less preferable. Creative re-translation or not, if he knew it wasn't the best rendering of the translation, he should not have quoted it in support of his contention. This does give one reason to question the level of desperation.

No, your comments and Steve's comments amount to a lot of hand-waving and side trails. The concluding statement (yours, I think, or is it Steves?) gets to the point, and supports my accusation of how you would have us read 1 Jn 5:1:

If a man may believe for an instant, it seems, he might, in that instant, turn to God and be regenerated by the grace of God (which comes "through faith" Eph.2:8; Rom.5:2).

So are you now saying that pointing out that the main focus of the theme of the whole letter, the wider context, the authers intent of the passage, and purpose in writing the epistle amounts to a lot of hand-waving and side trails? You are mistaken again, and present the same strawman you did last time. I do not read 1 John 5:1 to mean If a man may believe for an instant, it seems, he might, in that instant, turn to God and be regenerated by the grace of God (which comes "through faith" Eph.2:8; Rom.5:2). You are not getting what I am saying. I am saying that John uses the word believes to describe a life pattern [way of life] just as he refers to practicing righteousness as a life pattern [way of life]in 2:29, and refers to everyone who loves [the brethren] as a life pattern [way of life] in 4:7. The present active participle used in 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 suggests this, as was already said. Your problem [and all calvinists for that matter] is that you want to force John to be saying something that neither entered his mind or lies inside of his intent of him writing the passage. If you would take the time to read and understand what I am saying, you would know that I agree that this verse does supply the order of this. In fact, I had already quoted Steve who said "Therefore, a life of faith, love and righteous living (John declares) is the life that exhibits a prior rebirth."

Are your arms tired[?], because your the one who seems to be hand waving. Also, where would 1 John 5:1 rank in the level of clarity in the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith? I hope this isn't the top scripture in the calvinist sandbag of passages, because the doctrine would then be seriously unstable!

[Josephmers]

Troy C.
"is" is NOT the preferable translation. γεγέννηται (has been born) is a perfect passive.
πιστεύων (faith/believes) is a present participle.

Anybody who reads this from the Greek will NEVER take that verse to mean just (has been born) only OR (is) only. Not to write a dissertation but this is God's Word and I will be held accountable for what I teach.

There are many things going on in the syntax and grammar of this verse. One is TEMPORAL and the other in ASPECT. When you read this in the Greek it makes perfect sense, but for those who don't know Greek I'll do my best.

1) the word for belief/trust/faith is in the PRESENT active .... easy to understand Present which means it is happening now and continuing (this is the FORCE/Aspect of the verb) and it is active in voice which means a person is doing it, it is not being done TO him.

2) This is where syntax/grammar is VERY important. The word γεγέννηται is a perfect passive.

The passive is easy to understand, it is being done TO the person. Thus God is doing the "begetting or fathering" to the person.

The ASPECT/FORCE of the verb is what is difficult to GIVE to the English understanding person without it sounding stupid.

The perfect tense is "an action done in the PAST that has ONGOING effects". The PAST tells you WHEN it happened, the ONGOING effects is the ASPECT of the verb.

If you know Greek it is understood VERY easily. But difficult because of the complexity of the Greek verses the English to translate it to convey the proper meaning of the Greek time AND aspect of the verb. A complete translation of the verb with it's time and aspect would be translated something silly like this:

"HAS BEEN born of God and IS continually" That's allot for one Greek word but that shows how much more complex the Greek is to the English.
A translation that would carry out the temporal AND ASPECT would go like this:

"Those who believe that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God before believing and the "state" of being born of God continues during and after the initial act of belief that is also continuing.

Now, in translation you DO NOT ADD many words even to be truthful to the force of the language. A translator wants to be as concise to each word of the Bible without losing aspect and force in verb usage. In other words, less is better... less words, less people in that language can "screw things up and misunderstand things". Thus the translators are "stuck" in what they want to convey, either the temporal meaning or the force of the meaning, again using both would be going WAY out of the realm of conservative translation.

You can not make a temporal argument for the "is". The "is" states the continuation of the act NOT when it happened. Translators that side with "is" did so to convey the assurance that when you are born again it is CONTINUAL, thus you can not lose it. They did this also because in the translation of "has been born of God" someone could say "Yeah you WERE born of God but now you are not". The translators voted that this was the most important understanding they wanted to get across to people verses telling people the temporal aspect which in the 1600's the temporal understanding was common place, thus to the translator's less important.

BUT !!! The temporal meaning of the verb IS JUST AS IMPORTANT and HAS TO BE DEALT WITH because it is a part of the true understanding of the verb. The perfect is like the past tense in the English, it means something was done in the past COMPARED to the state or action of what is being said, i.e. I am watching the t.v. that has been turned on.
This conveys the meaning that the t.v. was turned on BEFORE I started watching it. This is called syntax, the rules of how meanings are conveyed by the rules of grammar. The syntax in this verse is "when you have a present tense verb followed by a past perfect verb, the action of the past perfect took place BEFORE the present tense verb. The forces of the verb is ruled by the specific tense applied.

Translators that felt that the temporal meaning carried more weight than the force went with "has been" born of God to show WHEN God caused one to be born, namely before believing.

So BOTH are the correct understandings and BOTH must be accepted and BOTH have to be accepted to properly understand the verse. It is both/and not either/or.

Also again the passive voice. This is something done TO you not something you DO to something or somebody else.

Thus you are forced grammatically and syntactically by the present tense of believing and the past tense of being born of God.

God caused the birth BEFORE the belief and that state of being born of God continues.

See the last word "continues" ? How does one KNOW that one's faith is real? What is the "outcome" of this being born of God? THIS is exactly why John writes the rest of the letter, it is an explanation of the true continuing belief.

[Josephmers]

Interestingly enough, the NASB translation of 1 John 5:1 does not contain the past tense upon which your interpretation rests:

My interpretation is not resting on a Bible translation. You are a slave to the interpretor and commentator. And that explains your error.

I go straight to the Greek, not a interlinear which just makes someone dangerous. The actual GREEK word is in the PAST TENSE. You made the mistake in assuming from what you know grammatically in the English and injected that understanding to the Greek. Please be VERY careful of not having your theology drive your study. I know you want to be right like I do, but to be honest to the text and with yourself and most importantly God, please, if you are going to be arguing grammar go to the Greek.
Better yet, learn Greek! You'll love it! To whom much is given though, much is required.

You just don't know the dynamics that are involved in translating the Greek to the English.

I understand how this can be confusing but read my post above.

[Guest]

Troy, I just want to confirm that the following statement by (Alias) Jonathan Edwards is true:

The perfect tense is "an action done in the PAST that has ONGOING effects". The PAST tells you WHEN it happened, the ONGOING effects is the ASPECT of the verb.

We must admit this grammatical fact, and not attempt to interpret the passage on the grounds that some translation makes it sound as if
γεγέννηται is a present tense verb.

[Guest]

Thanks Paidion. Nevertheless, I still don't see how this disproves my contention I've presented. I worked for about an hour or so giving my thoughts about all of this, only to lose my work when the website crashed. I propose that a lifestyle of faith is in John's scope, and that regeneration is the basis for this. I don't think the verse comprehends the first act of faith, nor do I see a legitamate reason to believe this is what John had in mind when writing it. Thus, this view and the greek presented by J.Edwards seems to be compatible in my mind. What do you think in regards to this?

[Josephmers]

Thanks "Child" for that gracious response.

(side note) How long have you been taking Greek? Are you self taught or did you go to school? If this is personal, I won't be bothered if you don't want to tell me. It just might be of some help in how I relate to you per the Greek.


Grace to you,

[Josephmers]

Troy, what John has in mind is .... what he wrote. The Greek is VERY concise in constructs like this and the meanings are very easy to understand. From a Greek mind one would tell you this is exactly what John had in mind. You can do all the exegeting of the rest of the text you want, it doesn't change what is meant by the syntax construct of that particular verse. Otherwise great deep truths are undermined by the way you are looking at this verse if applied to John 1:1 for example. If the meaning of the text isn't derived from the syntax and grammar from what John is saying, anybody could say "Well, I don't think Jesus' divinity was in John's mind". It is just ignoring what the text actually says.

The text is even strengthened actually by the word "born by God" by what is derived from the meaning of it. We so glibly gloss over words and phrases (which actually I believe is a sin) because of the familiarity we have with them without pondering the concepts that ARE in the mind of John. What is being done in the action of "fathering" which is what "being BORN of God means? God is "fathering" "generating (which comes from the very Greek word being discussed and is the word that regeneration comes from).

John's selection of this word MEANS something. Why did he use "fathered"? The actual meaning of the is the ACT of Fathering by the way.
If you want a baby, do you ask the baby if it wants to be BORN? No, you create one, you "father" one or "generate" one. John was going out of his way in analogy and in direct syntactical/grammatical constructs to show that the birth had nothing to do with you, but it is in God who gave you life, just as a father gave a son life.

Jesus used this EXACT same word "born of above" "born again". Which I might add is from the same author, John.

I know this is difficult but isn't digging awesome?

Well I better finish this before the forum "crashes" again... I feel ya Troy it happened to me in the middle of replying also.

[Guest]

How long have you been taking Greek? Are you self taught or did you go to school? If this is personal, I won't be bothered if you don't want to tell me.

Oh, I don't mind answering that question at all. I am sure you are my superior, if you have studied formal Greek for 5 years, that is if the 5 years were course consecutive.

I took first year Greek long ago in a Bible school where I attended for a year. But I am a slow learner in languages, and so I repeated first year with a correspodence course from London England. Later, when I studied at the University of Manitoba, I repeated year one once again at St. John's (Anglican) College. I also took second year Greek at that institution. In the summer of 1997, I took first year Greek in a summer course at a Bible college. The concentration of it helped me to better remember verbal and nounal forms.

But since that time, I have been using it nearly every day in my scriptural studies. But where I learned it best was in teaching first year Greek to an adult class, ten years or more after I retired from teaching public school. I think it was in 2003 or 2004. You have to know what you're doing in order to teach.

[Guest]

There is no temporal language in John 3:16. It is just a description. Those who believe have eternal life.

The outcome of being "born again" is belief. And the promise of that belief is eternal life.

If this is so, then why did Jesus use this to describe it:


Jhn 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Jhn 3:15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

So lets see if I am understanding Jesus correctly. The people in Moses day needed to look on the serpent to be healed. And in the same manner Jesus must be lifted up so that everyone who believes shall not perish.

What I don't understand is if I import the Calvinist view to this explanitory text it would seem to mean that those of Moses day who looked upon the serpent were the very ones who were already saved. So they didn't really need to look at it because they were already saved and were merely proving this by looking at the serpent. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's saying that the very people who were dying and in need of a cure couldn't look at the serpent because God didn't cure them (i.e. regenerate them), but the ones who did look at the serpent weren't healed when they looked at it but rather were showing they didn't need healing because God already healed them and that healing enabled them (by regeneration) to look at the serpent.

If being born again brings faith then Jesus example of Moses and the serpent makes no sense, nor does the rest of the verse that says "whoever believes in Him should not perish".

Jesus described this to Nicodemus in verses 3, 5 and 7 and tells him he can not enter in the kingdom of God (implying being "ruled" by the King and knowing spiritual truth '1 cor 2.14') unless you are "born again".

Nicodemus was NOT a believer of God in the spiritual sense. Jesus said if you know the father you would believe in Hiim whom He has sent. Nicodemus did not believe in Christ at the time and was also ignorant of the spiritual things that should have already been understood by Him (vs 10) Nicodemus was spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14). Jesus was implying that it was impossible for Nicodemus to even understand what he was talking about because of his spiritual state "vs 12". Thus proving that Nicodemus must be born again to understand.

You mention 1 Cor 2:14, yet in that context Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, that while they didn't and apparently couldn't comprehend the "deep things" of God. But, they did believe "Christ and Him crucified"! So apparently these people could accept the gospel even though they lacked discernment of the Spirit to grasp the deep things.

In verse 8 Jesus speaks of the sovereignty of the spirit in a play of words. The WIND blows wherever it WISHES. The word for wind is the same for the spirit. Jesus implies that the spirit will cause whoever it WISHES to be born again. That which is flesh is flesh, but that which is spirit is spirit.

Actually that doesn't appear to be what the text is implying. One problem with this interpretation is that it would seem to contradict his explanation given in verse 14 (above).

"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Jesus then said "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things"

The example of "wind" is an earthly example. We can't see it but we can see the effects it has. Jesus specifically says "you cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes". This is about the wind. Then He says: "So is everyone who is born of the Spirit". So everyone born of the Spirit is like what? My opinion is Jesus is saying They (regenerated people) are the ones likened to the wind when among the unregenerate. The unregenerate hear them (i.e. they hear the sound they make, their influence on the environment) but they don't understand where they come from (heaven) or where they are going. Ironically, this exact type of wording was used when they spoke about Jesus:

Jhn 7:27 However, we know where this Man is from; but when the Christ comes, no one knows where He is from."

Jhn 9:29 We know that God spoke to Moses; [as for] this [fellow], we do not know where He is from."

John, the same writer explains the "spritual view" of things in salvation in 1 John 5:1.

Those who believe that Jesus is the Christ HAS BEEN BORN of God. The "has been born" is passive (which means God did it TO them) and it is in the perfect tense which means it was done PRIOR to the believing.

I agree with your interpretation of 1 John 5:1 but I don't see how it proves regeneration before faith. John was writing to Christians "little children". He (among other things) was giving them assurance of their relationship with God. By reminding them that since they are believers that they have (in the past) been born of God doesn't pose a problem. I would have stated it the same way. If you are currently a believer you have been born of God (sometime in the past). This isn't speaking about the "point of conversion" itself and so I don't see what relevace it has to the subject.