Does it state you are born again and then you believe in this passage?

__________________
Conscience may lash us, but it cannot replenish a languishing life. Conscience may be God's word and minister to you, telling you of your faults and your follies and your destitution. It may point out, but it will never supply you. Christ must give you new life. Hart has well expressed it: "He to the feeble and the faint, His mighty aid makes known; and when their languid life is spent, supplies it with His own." - J. K. Popham

Tell us what you think and why. Then we'll critique it.

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

Yes. "believeth" is present tense, "is born" is perfect tense. The perfect precedes the present.

__________________
Lance G. Marshall
Pastor
Georgetown, Indiana

What Lance posted.

I would say, by itself, no. Since the passage isn't really addressing the moment of conversion, it is a general statement on the union of belief and regeneration. I don't think it's legitimate to impose all of our questions about ordo salutis on a particular passage.

However, I think that John's regular pattern of using this perfect-present tense relationship does support the Reformed ordo salutis.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

I use this verse as one of my precision weapons against Arminians (along with Acts 13:48), so, I'm a little reluctant to water it down in the manner you have. The question is "does 1 John 5:1 teach that being born again precedes belief?" I think the answer is unambiguous that yes it does teach that, both grammatically and logically.

But we can't make absolutes off of relationships between tenses when the logical relationship is not the point of the passage.

For example, John 1:34 - "And I have seen and have borne witness (perfect) that this is (present) the Son of God." Obviously, it would be silly to say that John's witness preceded Jesus' sonship because of the tense relationship.

Or, how would we read John 3:18 - "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe (present) is condemned (Gk. perfect) already, because he has not believed (perfect) in the name of the only Son of God."

So the present-perfect relationship would suppose that the condemnation precedes the unbelieving. But wait, in the next clause the condemnation is logically caused by the unbelieving (perfect)!

John 1:34 is a case of reported speech: "this is the content of what my witness has been" - the content being that "Jesus is the Son of God". This is not a matter of logical sequence, so the perfect/present case is not really important to the matter at hand.

John 3:18 states the case that the one in question is condemned because they do not and have not believed on Jesus. Again, not a matter of sequence but a matter of persistent nonbelief, and so the perfect/present case is not one of sequence.

1 John 5:1 is not reported speech, nor a statement of causality; it is a simple statement of sequence (perfect/present) ... that happened and now this happens .. you were born of God and now you believe.

Again, the question was does 1 John 5:1 show that the sequence of events is such that one is born of God before they believe; the answer is yes it does.

What about Romans 2:25? For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break (present) the law, your circumcision has become (perfect) uncircumcision.

According to the tenses, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision before you break the law? I'm not saying that there's nothing to be said for 1 John 5:1. I think that John speaks consistently enough about the new birth and belief to conclude that regeneration precedes faith. I just don't think I would use 1 John 5:1 as a stand-alone magic bullet, since John's topic is evidence of conversion, not timing.

So, based on the grammar of 1 John 5:1 your answer to the question does 1 John 5:1 teach a logical sequence is "No." My answer to the question alone is "Yes." We can argue all the various ways present/perfect constructions occur in the NT, but that would not answer the simple question originally posed. I did not say this verse PROVES the case, I only said based on the tenses of the verbs it presents a sequence. Something is affirmed as happening prior to something else happening. That was the question, and that is question with which I have to deal with the many Arminians I deal with. They want to say "if you have believed then you are born of God." When I show them the clear grammar of 1 John 5:1, they have to pull back from their certainty and they are not so quick to say belief precedes new birth. When involved in a heated apologetical debate with an Arminian, it is helpful to have a verse such as 1 John 5:1 to show just the opposite of their assumption. Its there ... "believeth" - present active participle ... "is born of God" - perfect passive indicative. In this one verse the perfect logically precedes the present. That dumbfounds the Arminian, and in fact my using that one verse led a man to question much more about Arminianism and he is now Reformed.

And this is confirmed by a comparison of the same usage in 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:4; and 5:18; where in each and every case the quality possessed is regarded as a consequence and evidence of being born of God.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I think this is more what I was getting at. Perhaps I was interpreting the OP too much in terms of systematic theology. I think there is plenty of evidence that regeneration precedes faith, especially in John's writing. I think a comparison of Scripture will bear that out, as Rev. Winzer has provided one way of doing so. I'm just not really interested one verse bullets. Yes, you could persuade an Arminian with the grammar of 1 John 5:1, but I know people who were persuaded into the Church of Christ through the "clear grammar" of Acts 2:38.

So, perhaps I should have answered the OP with "yes," but by that I do not mean that the verse by itself is theologically conclusive of regeneration preceding faith in the ordo salutis.

Charlie, 1 John 5:1 may not be a magic bullet, but IMHO I do not think your arguments from the Greek tenses in other quoted verses are particularly germane.

Also, see Robert Reymond here:

Regeneration by Robert Reymond

Peace.

But, but, Reymond said exactly what I said! My comments on the Greek weren't really germane to exegesis, only to Lance's original comment. That's what all my posts have been about. Lance's original post, to me, seemed like an overly superficial gloss - perfect precedes present, case closed. As Reymond exemplified, understanding 1 John 5:1 requires comparing it with other places in Scripture to determine John's intent. If I had only 1 John 5:1 on a scrap of paper, I do not think it would be legitimate to concede only from that one verse that regeneration necessarily precedes faith in the ordo salutis. Reymond allows for as much.

My point all along is that theology is not done from verses (which are artificial divisions of the text) but from Scripture. Rev. Winzer's post is a great example of how I would approach the issue theologically. I was not opposed to Lance's post because I think he is wrong, but because it ignored context. If someone were to suggest a doctrine to me simply on the tense relationship between two verbs, I would be nonplussed. Of course, I think Lance would agree with me that the ideal situation would be to sit down and look at 1 John 5:1 in context, or at other verses that indicate a similar relationship between regeneration and faith.

I appreciate all you have said, Charlie. And I do not mean it as a silver bullet. But I also notice you are a theological student and herein might be an important point. You are used to a classroom where these matters can be fleshed out. It is a different situation standing at the door of the church and having a person leave and say, "Preacher, which comes first faith or rebirth?" You have about 30 seconds to answer a question. It is helpful to be able to say "Go home and read 1 John 5:1 and you'll see rebirth comes before faith." I wish I could sit and show that person all the verses you would to establish the case, however, pastoral ministry doesn't always give us that luxury. My hope is 1 John 5:1 will whet their appetite to come back for the full answer. Sometimes in the "drive-by" nature of pastoral ministry we can't enjoy the luxury of spending a day in class doing all the fine exegetical work. I'm not discounting your student experience, I was there once, and sometimes I wish I could return. If you are planning on the pastoral ministry, realize you won't be able to tie everything up in neat exegetical papers, with footnotes and cross references. Sometimes pastoral ministry and apologetics are messy and brief. Some people will only listen for one verse and for 30 seconds. I have also found that in pastoral ministry it is important to answer the specific question asked and not try to answer questions not asked. If you look at the OP, that is a common simple question many people have asked me, and if I did not answer them in the simple way I answered the OP, they would never have gotten the answer to the question because they would tune me out.

Point taken, sir.

As an aside, the thought in this text is not clear when the perfect tense of the verb is translated using the present periphrastic is born (NIV, NASB, NKJV). It is better translated has been born (ESV). As Matthew Winzer pointed out, in 1 John 2:29 and 4:7, for example, we have exactly parallel Greek wording, also using the perfect tense of the verb, to show us how we are to understand 5:1. Note in 2:29, "everyone practicing righteousness has been born of God." Do they practice righteousness in order to be born of God or because they have been born of God? Because they have been born of God! Now look at 4:7, "everyone loving has been born of God." Does this not say that they love because they have been born of God? It certainly does.

Now looking again at 1 John 5:1 from the Greek, "Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." The fact that they are believing (present tense particilpe) indicates that they have been born (perfect tense) of God. That's the literal translation and that's how it should read. It is interesting that the NIV correctly renders the perfect tense has been born in the first two cases, then, for some unknown reason, changes to is born in 5:1. This specifically leads the casual reader to assume that believing results in the new birth -- as if it said, "every one believing is thereby born of God.'

Jim, I share your disappointment with most English translations of 1 John 5:1. It seems either the translators did not see the importance of a verse like this or they did see it's importance but sought to conceal it because of their own personal theology on the matter. Or maybe they just didn't realize most English readers don't know English grammar.

Jim, "is born" is a very legitimate rendering of the Greek perfect. The Greek perfect, as you know, emphasizes a completed action with present results. If the focus is on the completed action, it is called extensive. If the focus is on the present result, it is called intensive (or resultative). The English perfect is a good match for the Greek extensive perfect, but the English present (especially stative) is a better match for the Greek intensive.

Dan Wallace lists some places where the Greek perfect is best translated in the present - Mark 6:14; Luke 5:20; John 17:7 (first perfect); Rom. 3:10; Heb. 4:13; 1 John 4:14, etc.

The focus of the passage is clearly the present - the one who is believing not only has been but IS born again. That said, I do see how it could be confusing or ambiguous to certain English readers. But, I think to translate it with the English perfect actually distorts the semantic force of the Greek perfect.

That's the case with me. I didn't really get into English grammar until I studied Greek. Then I was forced to.

Perhaps the only way to capture the full meaning of a Greek intensive perfect would be to translate, "has been and still is." But, that's so stylistically ugly that I doubt anything except an Amplified type of Bible would do that. Perhaps a footnote would be appropriate.

Thanks, Charlie.

I realize that "is born" is a legitimate rendering. However, IMHO, any perceived distortion in the "semantic force" of the Greek perfect tense is more than offset by the probable misunderstanding of the present periphrastic by casual readers.

I find the usual pew sitter can too easily insert a mental "then" between "is" and "born" without tripping over the grammar and hence it is more resonant with their "faith then rebirth" theology. Unfortunately "born" is one of those English words which does not reflect past, present, or future very easily.