The Narrow Path Ministries

Was regeneration necessary, during the period of the Old Testament, in order to have faith in God? (By "Old Testament", I mean from Adam to Christ.) What proofs can be adduced, from scripture, either for or against this idea?

Nicodemus was obviously a believer in God, but unsure of who Jesus was, when we first hear of him in scripture. If belief in God only follows regeneration, why did Jesus tell him he must be born again if monergism is true? Why would Jesus inform anyone of their need to be born again if, in order to the new birth, no response on their part is needed? According to monergism, no response is necessary; indeed the person is totally without any ability to respond, being completely "dead". And are we to believe Nicodemus was not one of the elect, was never to become a Christian?

Bob,

I am still interested in your response to my previous question:

what I would like to know, and have previously asked you, is where in the text of Acts 13 we are informed of when the gentiles became ordained/disposed (take your pick) to eternal life? I say when they heard the gospel preached the previous Sabbath. Please demonstrate from the text where I am wrong.

I am hoping you find the question "interesting" enough to respond to. You can respond on the Acts 13:48 thread.

Since we're on the same subject, I wonder what bshow makes of the many Scriptures that teach that upon believing, we experience eternal life. (see John 3:16, 18, 36; 4:42, 53; 6:40, 47 20:21 to mention a few) As I said before, if this “eternal life” is the same “life” that makes us alive, then the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith is hilariously unstable. I hope bshow finds this question interesting enough to answer as well. As of yet, he has not answered this, so this is this is the third time I present it to him. Is this the the same life that makes us alive?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Troy C wrote:Since we're on the same subject, I wonder what bshow makes of the many Scriptures that teach that upon believing, we experience eternal life. (see John 3:16, 18, 36; 4:42, 53; 6:40, 47 20:21 to mention a few) As I said before, if this “eternal life” is the same “life” that makes us alive, then the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith is hilariously unstable. I hope bshow finds this question interesting enough to answer as well. As of yet, he has not answered this, so this is this is the third time I present it to him. Is this the the same life that makes us alive?

Huh, no it's not very interesting, because none of the verses cited support your claim. Jn. 20:21?

To be born from above, not by the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but from God, is to have eternal life as a present possession. A wonderfully stable doctrine.

Cheers,
Bob

J.Edwards,

Almost all translations render John 3:16 saying "whoever believes in him shall...have eternal life." or something very similar. You will need to explain more on this point to make this verse either translate, or mean the reality of belief follows life. This may be a general description, but it most certainly has a temporal application. The outcome of being "born again" is not the first act of belief, but a lifestyle of belief. The promise of that initial act of faith is eternal life, which is in the Son. Is this life the same life that makes us alive, regenerates us, and gives us new birth?

John 3:18
He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 6:40
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life

John 12:36
While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."

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

In John 3:8 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.

"Some have assumed that our Lord's words here imply that the Holy Spirit visits some men with saving grace, but not others, because God wishes to save only some men rather than all. It is assumed that the words rule out all possibility of the existence of any pertinent condition or factor in men of which the Holy Spirit takes cognizance in effecting the new birth. Certainly the new birth is a divine operation--the action of Spirit on spirit--and not in any sense something man does for himself. But our Lord's words in John 3:8 must be understood as descriptive rather than proscriptive. Human condition and agency, far from negated in Christ's discourse to Nicodemus, are categorically affirmed: 'you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?' (v. 11f, RSV) Nothing is more emphatic in verses 14-21 than the condition 'whoever believes' and the affirmation of authentic human agency in the face of valid practicable options." (Robert Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1970, 1989, p. 179)

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.

Interestingly enough, the NASB translation of 1 John 5:1 does not contain the past tense upon which your interpretation rests: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is [not has been] born of God.” What's more, is that neither does the NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, MSG, or BBE. Only of few of the many translations contain it. (NRSV, NET)

NKJV Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

NIV Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

NASB Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

NLT Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God. And everyone who loves the Father loves his children, too.

MSG Every person who believes that Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah, is God-begotten. If we love the One who conceives the child, we'll surely love the child who was conceived.

BBE Everyone who has faith that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God: and everyone who has love for the Father has love for his child.

To be honest disciple of Edwards, 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 is not in John's scope of writing the verse at hand, because John did not believe that regeneration precedes faith. He wrote at the close of his Gospel: “But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31, emphasis added). Neither did Jesus believe that regeneration preceded faith: “While you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light” (John 12:36, emphasis added). Neither did Paul: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26, emphasis added).

Steve Gregg, a member of this forum has already commented on this same verse.

He comments: I will admit that this verse is the best I have seen to support the Calvinist contention. It seems to be saying, "If you see a man believing, that is evidence of his regeneration," just as the other verses in 1 John are saying, "If you see a man doing righteousness, loving his brother, etc., you are seeing a regenerated man."

I can see how one would see this as a proof of the Calvinist doctrine. However, I do not think that these verses are referring to a single act of believing, loving or doing righteousness. They are describing life patterns. They are saying that these characteristics are the proofs of true salvation, namely, the regenerated person believes in Christ (as a way of life), and loves (as a way of life) and does righteousness (as a way of life). That is what the present active participle (used in 2:29; 4:7 and 5:1) suggests. It is "the one doing righteousness [habitually]" and "the one loving his brothers [habitually]" and "the one believing [habitually]".

Therefore, a life of faith, love and righteous living (John declares) is the life that exhibits a prior rebirth. It falls outside the range of John's discussion to say whether or not an unbeliever might, on occasion, do the uncharacteristic thing of loving or believing or doing a good deed. Calvinists assert that the unregenerated cannot do any of the above, but John's statements do not address that question. John is describing patterns of living that give evidence of regeneration. It is not within his purview to address the ability of the saved person to have an unloving or an unbelieving or an unrighteous moment. Nor is he addressing the possibility of the unregenerate having a loving moment, doing an individual righteous deed, or momentarily believing in Jesus (after all, Calvinists do recognize "temporary belief" as existing in the unregenerate in their treatment of Luke 8:13).

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).

Therefore, 1 John 5:1 can only be said to teach the Calvinistic doctrine if the interpreter wants it to teach that. It is not a doctrine that could be drawn from the passage in its context.

Troy C wrote:

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.

Interestingly enough, the NASB translation of 1 John 5:1 does not contain the past tense upon which your interpretation rests: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is [not has been] born of God.”

Troy, you're tilting at windmills here.

The two words "is born" come from the one Greek word γεγεννηται (gegenatai, from genao, "birth") which is in the perfect tense, as J. Edwards noted. "Is born" is a fine translation for the perfect tense. "Has been" is less preferred (although valid), because it does not capture the idea of continuing abiding action into the present as well in the English.

For example, if I said "Fred is married", that carries the idea of a completed action (the wedding), with continuing results into the present (he's still married).

However, if I said "Fred has been married", you might get the idea that he was married at one time, but perhaps insn't married any longer.

So "is born of God" is the preferred translation.

Instead, you would have us read the verse as "is born (as a result of that belief)" or "is born (subsequent to belief)". Just as with Acts 13:48, the Greek will simply not allow that.

Look up perfect tense.

Cheers,
Bob

bshow1 wrote:

Troy C wrote:

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.

Interestingly enough, the NASB translation of 1 John 5:1 does not contain the past tense upon which your interpretation rests: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is [not has been] born of God.”

Troy, you're tilting at windmills here.

The two words "is born" come from the one Greek word γεγεννηται (gegenatai, from genao, "birth") which is in the perfect tense, as J. Edwards noted. "Is born" is a fine translation for the perfect tense. "Has been" is less preferred (although valid), because it does not capture the idea of continuing abiding action into the present as well in the English.

For example, if I said "Fred is married", that carries the idea of a completed action (the wedding), with continuing results into the present (he's still married).

However, if I said "Fred has been married", you might get the idea that he was married at one time, but perhaps insn't married any longer.

So "is born of God" is the preferred translation.

Instead, you would have us read the verse as "is born (as a result of that belief)" or "is born (subsequent to belief)". Just as with Acts 13:48, the Greek will simply not allow that.

Look up perfect tense.

Cheers,
Bob

There is nothing in 1 John 5:1 which gives reference to the time between believing and being born of God. This must be determined from other scriptures. All 5:1 says is the one beleiving (right now) is giving evidence that He is born of God.

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.

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!

Butch5 wrote: There is nothing in 1 John 5:1 which gives reference to the time between believing and being born of God. This must be determined from other scriptures. All 5:1 says is the one beleiving (right now) is giving evidence that He is born of God.

Hi Butch,

Is the truth that the verse teaches valid at the first moment of belief?

If so, then birth precedes belief.

If not, then why is the verse true in some situations and not others?

Cheers,
Bob