Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tell us what you think and why. Then we'll critique it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
John’s statement in 1 John 5:1, “Everyone who believes [pisteuōn] that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten [gegennētai] by God,” also bears out the sequential cause and effect relationship between regeneration as cause and faith as effect. It is true, if one were to restrict his assessment of John’s intended meaning to only this one verse, that one could conceivably argue that John, by his reference to regeneration, was simply saying something more, in a descriptive way, about everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ—that he “has been begotten by God,” but that he need not be understood as suggesting that a cause and effect relationship exists between God’s regenerating activity and saving faith. But when one takes into account that John says in 1 John 3:9a that “everyone who has been begotten [gegennēmenos] by God does not do sin, because [hoti] his seed abides in him” and then in 1 John 3:9b that “he is not able to sin, because [hoti] he has been begotten [gegennētai—the word in 5:1] by God,” we definitely find a cause and effect relationship between God’s regenerating activity as the cause and the Christian’s not sinning as one effect of that regenerating activity.
Charlie, 1 John 5:1 may not be a magic bullet, but In my humble opinion I do not think your arguments from the Greek tenses in other quoted verses are particularly germane.
Also, see Robert Reymond here:
John’s statement in 1 John 5:1, “Everyone who believes [pisteuōn] that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten [gegennētai] by God,” also bears out the sequential cause and effect relationship between regeneration as cause and faith as effect. It is true, if one were to restrict his assessment of John’s intended meaning to only this one verse, that one could conceivably argue that John, by his reference to regeneration, was simply saying something more, in a descriptive way, about everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ—that he “has been begotten by God,” but that he need not be understood as suggesting that a cause and effect relationship exists between God’s regenerating activity and saving faith. But when one takes into account that John says in 1 John 3:9a that “everyone who has been begotten [gegennēmenos] by God does not do sin, because [hoti] his seed abides in him” and then in 1 John 3:9b that “he is not able to sin, because [hoti] he has been begotten [gegennētai—the word in 5:1] by God,” we definitely find a cause and effect relationship between God’s regenerating activity as the cause and the Christian’s not sinning as one effect of that regenerating activity.
Regeneration by Robert Reymond
Peace.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
. . . Or maybe they just didn't realize most English readers don't know English grammar.
. . . 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.