1John 5:1 regeneration before faith

Theo1689

Well-known member
Dr. Rob Plummer is a Greek scholar. He's written a grammar, he teaches Greek, and he has a daily video called, "Daily Dose of Greek", where he spends a couple of minutes each day parsing and translating a verse of the New Testament each day.

He's already gone through 1 John, and the page with the 1 John 5 verses translated can be found here:

Since his videos are intended to help keep students' translating skills sharp, he concentrates more on translation, but he does occasionally refer to interpretational nuances as they appear. As he translates "γεγεννηται" ("has been born"), he points out that it is in the perfect passive indicative, and contrasts that with "every one who is believing" being in the present tense.

In fact, at the one minute mark he states:

"Notice the shift in tenses here. We have the present, the person who believes, who evidences current belief, HAS been born, perfect tense, from God."

So Dr. Plummer thinks the shift in tenses (from completed past action, to present tense) is significant here. Further, he points out that "has been born" is passive, it is not something we do, it is something done to us.
 
Dr. Rob Plummer is a Greek scholar. He's written a grammar, he teaches Greek, and he has a daily video called, "Daily Dose of Greek", where he spends a couple of minutes each day parsing and translating a verse of the New Testament each day.

He's already gone through 1 John, and the page with the 1 John 5 verses translated can be found here:

Since his videos are intended to help keep students' translating skills sharp, he concentrates more on translation, but he does occasionally refer to interpretational nuances as they appear. As he translates "γεγεννηται" ("has been born"), he points out that it is in the perfect passive indicative, and contrasts that with "every one who is believing" being in the present tense.

In fact, at the one minute mark he states:

"Notice the shift in tenses here. We have the present, the person who believes, who evidences current belief, HAS been born, perfect tense, from God."

So Dr. Plummer thinks the shift in tenses (from completed past action, to present tense) is significant here. Further, he points out that "has been born" is passive, it is not something we do, it is something done to us.

So would it be fair to say that "believing" has already taken place?

God bless.
 
So would it be fair to say that "believing" has already taken place?

God bless.
It would be fair to say that being born again has already taken place (i.e. prior to believing), if the person is presently believing. Apply this principle to the first moment of believing, and it will be seen that being born comes first (this agrees with what Jesus tells Nicodemus, in John 3: in order to see and enter the Kingdom of God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ, you must first be born again).
 
So would it be fair to say that "believing" has already taken place?

God bless.

Well, that seems a funny way of phrasing things.
"has already taken place" makes it sound like believing is a one-time thing, "one and done".
It's present tense, not future, so they are already believing.
Further, the main aspect of the present tense is its continuous aspect. Believing is an ongoing thing, for the rest of our lives. As Dr. Plummer mentions, it's evidence of a regenerated heart.
 
It would be fair to say that being born again has already taken place (i.e. prior to believing), if the person is presently believing. Apply this principle to the first moment of believing, and it will be seen that being born comes first (this agrees with what Jesus tells Nicodemus, in John 3: in order to see and enter the Kingdom of God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ, you must first be born again).

I don't see that this is what Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3. Would you point out in John 3 where exactly the Lord states that being born again precedes believing?

God bless.
 
More like a believing had taken place.

And other people get on board.

Thanks for the post Theon.

I would agree, believing has taken place:


1 John 5 King James Version

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?



I think it is fair to say that...

1. Whoever believes is born of God;

2. Those born of God have overcome the world;

3. Overcoming the world is attributed to believing;


It is no small wonder that Regeneration would precede faith, because faith is the result of response to something one believes in.

But believing in Christ is mandatory to be an overcomer, and it is to unregenerate men that the Gospel is preached to.

That men can receive the knowledge of the truth illustrates that men men make a decision within the sphere of the ministry of the Comforter. They are held accountable to God and judged more severely because they turn from the truth.

Hence I would suggest it is not necessary to demand that one be born again in order to be born again, but that being born again is the result of believing something one did not formerly have a capacity to understand or receive.

So I would order the events of salvation as Natural man is ministered to God Who enlightens their minds to spiritual truth, they believe, and as a result they are born again.


God bless.
 
I would agree, believing has taken place:


1 John 5 King James Version

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?



I think it is fair to say that...

1. Whoever believes is born of God;

2. Those born of God have overcome the world;

3. Overcoming the world is attributed to believing;


It is no small wonder that Regeneration would precede faith, because faith is the result of response to something one believes in.

But believing in Christ is mandatory to be an overcomer, and it is to unregenerate men that the Gospel is preached to.

That men can receive the knowledge of the truth illustrates that men men make a decision within the sphere of the ministry of the Comforter. They are held accountable to God and judged more severely because they turn from the truth.

Hence I would suggest it is not necessary to demand that one be born again in order to be born again, but that being born again is the result of believing something one did not formerly have a capacity to understand or receive.

So I would order the events of salvation as Natural man is ministered to God Who enlightens their minds to spiritual truth, they believe, and as a result they are born again.


God bless.

Not a biblical scholar.

But IMO, you are conflating the OP.
 
Last edited:
Well, that seems a funny way of phrasing things.
"has already taken place" makes it sound like believing is a one-time thing, "one and done".
It's present tense, not future, so they are already believing.
Further, the main aspect of the present tense is its continuous aspect. Believing is an ongoing thing, for the rest of our lives. As Dr. Plummer mentions, it's evidence of a regenerated heart.

In regards to the event of being born again believing is in reference to a one-time event (thing).

Once one is born again we are not in our natural condition, but have received life and the Spirit of God.

If I asked you, "Theo, are you still believing Jesus died for your sin," it would be a little bit silly, wouldn't it?

I can say that I believe far more now than I did when I was saved. For me, that Christ died on the Cross that men might be reconciled to God in an eternal context isn't open for discussion. It's just a fact.

My faith, though, is a different story, because my faith is the result of my belief.

This is why Atheists are so confused, because they do not think they have faith, lol.

So I would agree faith follows believing, because one has to have something to believe in before they can express faith in that belief. The Comforter is going to being conviction of sin to all unbelievers, but not all unbelievers will respond to the Ministry, and what would be debated is whether they "believed," or whether they rejected the truth.

Personally, I believe they do believe but intentionally reject the Gospel because of their own desires. For example, someone might reject the truth because they want to remain in the religion they were brought up in. Doesn't mean they don't believe Jesus died on the Cross in their place for their sins. And I am not saying dogmatically that they do believe, but that this is my own opinion.

For those who do yield to the Comforter's convicting ministry, they are born again.

We are told how men are saved:


Acts 16:29-31 King James Version

29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.



Look at the conversion of Cornelius. Again, we are told the progression, or order of salvation.


Acts 11:13-18 King James Version

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


That Cornelius heard the Gospel was important enough for God to send them to Peter that they might hear the Gospel.

God gave the gift of Life to those who believed.

These are, according to Peter, the words by which Cornelius was saved. This is not the only place where the Gospel is intrinsic to salvation, and specifically the New Birth:


1 Peter 1:22-23 King James Version

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


James 1:18 King James Version

18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.


1 Peter 1:12 King James Version

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.



So, to make a long story short (I know, too late), Regeneration is dependent on one receiving the Gospel and believing it.

And it is only through the Ministry of the Comforter that men have been able to understand the Mystery of Christ.

And this is what I believe that some of you are really not going to like: no man was born again before Pentecost, because the Gospel was a Mystery not revealed in past Ages, generations, to any of the sons of men, but is now (in this Age) revealed to men by the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven.

;)


God bless
 
Not a biblical scholar.

But IMO, you are conflating the OP.

It is the objective of the OP, isn't it, to say that men are born again in order that they might have faith?

That regeneration precedes faith?

I see that it goes further than that:

"Notice the shift in tenses here. We have the present, the person who believes, who evidences current belief, HAS been born, perfect tense, from God."

It implies that Regeneration takes place before belief.

Isn't that the age-old dispute among Christians?

I happen to agree with the statement: it's obvious that one born again is a believer, we simply aren't going to have one who is born again that isn't a believer.

So Dr. Plummer thinks the shift in tenses (from completed past action, to present tense) is significant here. Further, he points out that "has been born" is passive, it is not something we do, it is something done to us.

I agree with that as well, however, the title of the OP is...

"1John 5:1 regeneration before faith"

Faith is a non-issue until one believes.

And just as Christians today confuse the debate about whether a man is justified by faith alone or by faith and works (both are equally true), even so today when most debate Faith itself they make faith and believing synonymous.

They aren't. Example: devils believe, and tremble.

The point being, just because one believes doesn't mean they are born again, because the object of faith is what is critical. Devils believe Who and what Jesus Christ is, but they do not believe that He died for their sins. They know He didn't, and that they are destined to the blackness of darkness forever.

On the flip side, we also have to take into account that believing is something that God has to make happen, and He does that through the preaching of the Gospel.

So I would present my position as agreeing with "regeneration before faith," but not regeneration before believing.


God bless.
 
It is the objective of the OP, isn't it, to say that men are born again in order that they might have faith?

That regeneration precedes faith?

I see that it goes further than that:



It implies that Regeneration takes place before belief.

Isn't that the age-old dispute among Christians?

I happen to agree with the statement: it's obvious that one born again is a believer, we simply aren't going to have one who is born again that isn't a believer.



I agree with that as well, however, the title of the OP is...

"1John 5:1 regeneration before faith"

Faith is a non-issue until one believes.

And just as Christians today confuse the debate about whether a man is justified by faith alone or by faith and works (both are equally true), even so today when most debate Faith itself they make faith and believing synonymous.

They aren't. Example: devils believe, and tremble.

The point being, just because one believes doesn't mean they are born again, because the object of faith is what is critical. Devils believe Who and what Jesus Christ is, but they do not believe that He died for their sins. They know He didn't, and that they are destined to the blackness of darkness forever.

On the flip side, we also have to take into account that believing is something that God has to make happen, and He does that through the preaching of the Gospel.

So I would present my position as agreeing with "regeneration before faith," but not regeneration before believing.


God bless.

ok ....
 
If I asked you, "Theo, are you still believing Jesus died for your sin," it would be a little bit silly, wouldn't it?

I can say that I believe far more now than I did when I was saved.

So you asked me if a particular question was "a little bit silly", and then you answered your own question, and proved that it wasn't "silly" at all.

For me, that Christ died on the Cross that men might be reconciled to God in an eternal context isn't open for discussion. It's just a fact.

Not sure why you went off on this tangent, but whatever...

My faith, though, is a different story, because my faith is the result of my belief.

You appear to be confused.
"Faith" ("pistis") and "belief" ("pistis") and "believing" ("pisteuo") all refer to the same thing.
They are simply cognates, the verbal form and the noun form of the same concept.

This is why Atheists are so confused, because they do not think they have faith, lol.

That's because they don't.
God hasn't given them faith.

So I would agree faith follows believing,

That's a nonsense statement.
You will not find such a nonsensical statement anywhere in the Bible.
It's like saying, I walked and then after that I had a walk.
No, you had a walk WHILE you walked, they're referring to the SAME thing.

The Comforter is going to being conviction of sin to all unbelievers,

I think that's a misnomer, since He is not "Comforting" any unbelievers.

but not all unbelievers will respond to the Ministry,

... because God doesn't give them faith.

God gave the gift of Life to those who believed.

Do they become sheep because they believe?
Or do they believe because they are Christ's sheep?:

John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

So, to make a long story short (I know, too late), Regeneration is dependent on one receiving the Gospel and believing it.

That is 100% completely unBiblical.
You will not find any passage ANYWHERE that teaches that regeneration is "dependent on", and "follows" believing.

It implies that Regeneration takes place before belief.

That's because regeneration DOES occur prior to belief/faith.

I happen to agree with the statement: it's obvious that one born again is a believer, we simply aren't going to have one who is born again that isn't a believer.

As Dr. Plummer pointed out, our believing is the EVIDENCE that we have (already) been regenerated/born again.

Faith is a non-issue until one believes.

So faith is a non-issue until one has faith?
Talk about a nonsense statement.

And just as Christians today confuse the debate about whether a man is justified by faith alone or by faith and works (both are equally true),

Again, you are confused.
And I think the reason for that (or at least part of it) is because you are taking the text far too simply. "Justified" (like most other words, in most languages) have multiple meanings. That's why most comprehensive dictionaries list multiple definitions for most words.

We are justified (before God) by faith alone.
Passages like James 2 aren't talking about being "justified" (before God), they are talking about being "vindicated" before men, for one's CLAIM to faith (James 2:14,18).

even so today when most debate Faith itself they make faith and believing synonymous.

Yes, "pistis" and "pistis" are synonymous.
They're the SAME word!

They aren't. Example: devils believe, and tremble.

Another example of your confusion.
As I pointed out above, words have different connotations.
So devils "believing" is not saying the same thing as Christians believing.

On the flip side, we also have to take into account that believing is something that God has to make happen, and He does that through the preaching of the Gospel.

No, He does that through:
- election;
- regeneration;
- giving a new heart of flesh;
- giving faith;
- giving repentance;
- AND through the preaching of the gospel.

The preaching of the gospel alone doesn't regenerate anyone, which is why so many who hear the gospel never believe. God hasn't given them faith TO believe.

So I would present my position as agreeing with "regeneration before faith," but not regeneration before believing.

The two statements mean the exact same thing.
 
I don't see that this is what Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3. Would you point out in John 3 where exactly the Lord states that being born again precedes believing?

God bless.
We enter the kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus told Nicodemus that we must be born again to see (i.e. perceive) the kingdom of God, never mind enter it.
 
S.T.Ranger said:
If I asked you, "Theo, are you still believing Jesus died for your sin," it would be a little bit silly, wouldn't it?

I can say that I believe far more now than I did when I was saved.

So you asked me if a particular question was "a little bit silly", and then you answered your own question, and proved that it wasn't "silly" at all.

It would be silly because one is either a believer or one is not.

You do not make a distinction between believing and being a believer?

Are devils that believe believers?

There is a moment in time when you and I became believing.

Are you saying that the belief you had when you were born again was a trial period?

As I said, silly, isn't it?


God bless.
 
S.T.Ranger said:
For me, that Christ died on the Cross that men might be reconciled to God in an eternal context isn't open for discussion. It's just a fact.

Not sure why you went off on this tangent, but whatever...

A tangent?

My belief when I was saved was specific. My faith has grown since I believed because I understand better how I am saved.

It isn't a matter of me having faith to believe, it's a matter that I have faith because I believed.


Hebrews 11 King James Version

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



The Old Testament Saints had faith because they believed that God would be their Savior. They didn't know how as we do.

Abraham, for example, was justified because he believed what God said He would do—He would do.

What did Abraham believe? Well, Romans 4 makes it pretty clear: he believed God would give him a son through a wife beyond bearing age and that his descendant would be the source of blessing to all families of the earth.

He believed. He was justified. He was declared righteous.

But it was faith that allowed him to take his son up a hill and it was faith that lifted his arm to bring the death-blow.

Understand?

Faith is the evidence that belief is real. Faith is the muscle on the bone of belief. You simply cannot express faith unless you believe, and often when faith is expressed it isn't necessarily directly related to the belief itself. An example might be that I have faith in our Justice System, however flawed that may be, because I am a believer.


Hebrews 11:17-19 King James Version

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.



Abraham had faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead if he (Abraham) should slay him because God had promised Abraham that all families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham.

That faith was a result of his belief in God and the Promise.

It is going to take most of your post to present what I am saying, so be patient with me.


God bless.

 
S.T.Ranger said:
My faith, though, is a different story, because my faith is the result of my belief.

You appear to be confused.
"Faith" ("pistis") and "belief" ("pistis") and "believing" ("pisteuo") all refer to the same thing.
They are simply cognates, the verbal form and the noun form of the same concept.

Well, let me explain why it is that I am not confused:


Galatians 3:21-28 King James Version

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.



So was there no faith before faith came?

Or is the faith here specific?

Abraham had faith, but Abraham never believed that Christ died in his stead, rose from the dead, nor believed the Name of Jesus was the only Name given by which men could be saved. He believed that God would give him a son.

We believe that God gave His Son to fulfill the Promise.

So let me ask you, can we translate the Bible and instead of using both believe and faith, simply use one or the other?

If so, why don't translators do that?


God bless.




 
Well, let me explain why it is that I am not confused:


Galatians 3:21-28 King James Version

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.



So was there no faith before faith came?

Or is the faith here specific?

Abraham had faith, but Abraham never believed that Christ died in his stead, rose from the dead, nor believed the Name of Jesus was the only Name given by which men could be saved. He believed that God would give him a son.

We believe that God gave His Son to fulfill the Promise.

So let me ask you, can we translate the Bible and instead of using both believe and faith, simply use one or the other?

If so, why don't translators do that?


God bless.

Yeah, so you refuse to accept correction, and interaction with you is pointless.

Good day sir…
 
S.T.Ranger said:
This is why Atheists are so confused, because they do not think they have faith, lol.

That's because they don't.
God hasn't given them faith.

So you are saying that atheists do not believe at all?

I would have to disagree with that because I see that God gives revelation to those that fall outside of the sphere of His direct revelation. Gentiles, for example, during the Age of Law. Gentiles who received revelation from God, the Law (His will) written on their hearts, and a judgment dependant on how they responded to that revelation.


Romans 2:10-16 King James Version

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.



If the doers of the Law perform the works of the Law written on their hearts, does this not say they will be justified?

They aren't believers. They do not have faith. They do not have The Faith.

Neither did Abraham, his belief centered on salvation through what he thought would be his seed, hence he was willing to produce an heir through Hagar.

Abraham was justified in a temporal context and died not receiving the Promise. His eternal destiny was secured through his belief and faith.

Belief that God would give him an heir, and faith to slay that son because his son had to be alive for the Promise to be realized.

Now, back to atheists: as I said I believe all men receive revelation from God. I think it likely in this Age that all receive the convicting ministry of the Comforter and that His ministry is specific to enlightening the natural mind to the Gospel, but I am not dogmatic, and allow that it is very possible there are men who grow up and live their lives without ever hearing a valid Gospel presentation. What some people post in forums seems to justify that allowance.

However, we can say for certain and be dogmatic that there are those who die and never get the chance to hear the Gospel and believe: murdered infants in the womb, for example. Young children. Those who are mentally impaired.

Do we say "Well if they are elect they will be saved and if they aren't, well, they will go to Hell?"

I don't think so: not a single Old Testament Saint had the Mystery of the Gospel unveiled to them yet their eternal destinies are certain. The Faith had not yet come, but they had faith because they believed God and responded to the revelation they received.

They believed despite not having The Faith.

At the risk of making this post longer than most will care to read, one more passage:


2 Peter 2:20-22
King James Version

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not
to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


(See the LINK)

These men knew. We cannot nullify an aspect of belief, because there is an association implied that this knowledge wasn't something they acquired on a street corner one day.


Romans 1:28-32 King James Version

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who
knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


They had knowledge of God but rebelled against it, thus God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

They knew the judgment of God—but rejected it.

So can atheists believe and not have faith, or The Faith—of course they can.

Devils believe, and tremble.

Or do you think devils have faith?


God bless.


 
Back
Top