Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
- By Dikaioumenoi
- Salvation (Soteriology)
- 145 Replies
Is this a serious question or are you just being argumentative? Let's start with your lack of interaction with John 6:44 (post #75). I've asked you repeatedly to engage my argument. Instead, if you've answered at all (most of these requests were ignored), you've only replied with bare assertions and then ignored every follow-up where I've pressed you to substantiate them (example, see 3 of the last 4 quotes).Like what for example? Be specific, what do you want me to address that I haven’t already addressed?
You've also not had anything to say about the grammatical parallel between 1 John 5:1, 2:29 and 4:7 (post #91). You keep demanding that I defend a claim I never made about verbs entailing sequence, while sidestepping the contextual and syntactical issue I raised there. Again, even if we were to grant what you're saying about John 3:18, it's irrelevant to our discussion, because the argument of the OP reflects a demonstrated pattern of John's usage of the perfect γεγέννηται with a present participle in 1 John. He's making a point with that construction.
Then there's your complete non-engagement with my comments on 2 Peter 3:9 (post #93). You never acknowledged a single exegetical point, yet you brought the verse back up as though nothing had been said.
And the John 12:36 point. I've explained twice now why your use of it is irrelevant to the passage's flow of thought, yet you've offered no exegesis in return. You just keep reiterating a claim the exegesis itself already responds to.
At this stage, this isn't a dialogue; it's one-sided labor. So this is probably my last reply to you unless you can start directly interacting with my exegesis. You're repeating claims while ignoring the analysis that challenges them.
You're still not answering the question I asked you. At best, you're deflecting it with more questions. I've asked multiple times why you keep equating salvation with regeneration, and instead of answering, you've simply repeated the same assertion under different wording.Are you suggesting that God regenerates people who aren’t saved? I don’t understand what your point is.
God regenerates His elect -- those whom the Father has given to the Son (John 6:37), granting them new birth (John 1:13; cf. Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3, 23). By virtue of that regeneration, they are enabled to turn to Christ in genuine faith (John 6:44, 65; Acts 13:48). Through that faith, which is itself God's gift (Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29), they receive the full benefits of salvation: justification (Rom. 5:1), adoption (Gal. 4:4-7), sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Thess. 4:3), and glorification (Rom. 8:30).
Regeneration is not the whole of salvation; it is a distinct act within it. It is the impartation of life to those "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13), enabling them to hear Christ's voice and live (John 5:25; 10:27-28). It is the ontological ground of faith; we believe because we have been born again, not vice versa. That does not mean, however, that all the other benefits of salvation don't flow through faith as the ordained instrument of their reception (Rom. 5:1-2; Gal. 3:26).
The reason you're confused on my argument is because you're treating "regeneration" and "salvation" as synonyms. Scripture distinguishes those terms. Salvation unfolds in a divine order: election, calling, regeneration, conversion (faith and repentance), justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification (Rom. 8:28-30; Titus 3:5-7). These terms can overlap contextually, but they are not identical.
My claim is not that "salvation" precedes faith, but that regeneration precedes faith. Regeneration is God's enabling act; faith is man's attendant response. The issue is not whether faith is required for salvation, but why faith is possible at all (John 6:44).
See post #91 and interact with my comments on 1 John 2:29 and 4:7, please. Repeating questions I've already answered does not advance the discussion. That there is a logical relationship between present participles and perfect indicatives in didactic statements is indisputable. That is simply how Greek grammar functions. What that relationship specifically entails depends on syntax and context. You are ignoring what I have argued concerning both.
No, I don't. It is not my responsibility to disprove the claim that there is a contradiction. It is your responsibility to show why you think one exists. 1 John 5:1 addresses the ontological grounds of belief: why some are able to believe at all. See also John 6:44. John 12:36, by contrast, is an exhortation concerning those who have the light and the temporal opportunity to believe. There is no conflict between a statement about the foundation of faith and one about responding to opportunity. The invitation is made regardless of whether one is able to receive it. These are separate issues.You still have to explain how your interpretation of 1 John 5:1 doesn’t contradict John 12:36.
Because they do. We're not disputing whether they must believe. The question we're concerned with is why one is able to believe in the first place.Why is Jesus telling these people that they have to believe in order to become sons of the Light?
No, it's not. I've already asked you to defend this claim. What is your argument?Becoming a child of God is synonymous with being born again, it’s the exact same thing.
υἱοὶ φωτός is a Semitic idiom. In Hebrew idiom, "sons of ..." describes people identified by a certain quality or sphere (e.g., Eph. 2:2; Luke 10:6; 16:8). The verse is about being identified with the realm of divine truth and righteousness through faith in the Light (Jesus). It's not a statement describing the moment of the new birth. The invitation to faith is simply that: an invitation to faith. The question of its ontological origin is not answered by that invitation itself.
Until you engage my comments on the grammatical and contextual parallel with 1 John 2:29 and 4:7, I will take your repeated non-engagement as a concession on this point.The only thing 1 John 5:1 tells us is that those who believe are born again. It doesn’t give any indication whatsoever of which event took place first or which event caused the other.
Then demonstrate exegetically how John 12:36 shows that. Simply asserting it does not engage the textual argument I've already laid out in John 6:44, 12:32, 1 John 5:1, 2:29, or 4:7.John 12:36 specifically tells us exactly which event takes place and which event caused the other.
Upvote
0
