Verses that prove regeneration comes before faith

[AndOne]

I will premises this post by stating that when I say regeneration I believe it is the same thing as being born again. Being born is not the same thing as faith. They are two separate things and in order to have faith to be able to be saved you must be born again. This is clearly seen in Jesus' teachings in John 3:1-15.

More textual proof from scripture that this is the case can be found in Romans 5:1-2: Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Clearly Paul is primarily talking about faith in this passage as well as the verses that follow but in verse 2 we clearly see a separate action occurring which is bringing about faith. Paul specifically states here that "through him we have also obtained access by faith into his grace..." The "through him" here is a display of the regenerative power of God which is bringing about faith!

The verse does not say that through "myself," "ourselves," "me," "my power," "my will," my belief," or anything of the sort. It says THROUGH HIM we have also obtained access by faith into his grace! Halleluiah!

 

[FreeGrace2]

I will premises this post by stating that when I say regeneration I believe it is the same thing as being born again. Being born is not the same thing as faith. They are two separate things and in order to have faith to be able to be saved you must be born again. This is clearly seen in Jesus' teachings in John 3:1-15.

More textual proof from scripture that this is the case can be found in Romans 5:1-2: Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Clearly Paul is primarily talking about faith in this passage as well as the verses that follow but in verse 2 we clearly see a separate action occurring which is bringing about faith. Paul specifically states here that "through him we have also obtained access by faith into his grace..." The "through him" here is a display of the regenerative power of God which is bringing about faith!

The verse does not say that through "myself," "ourselves," "me," "my power," "my will," my belief," or anything of the sort. It says THROUGH HIM we have also obtained access by faith into his grace! Halleluiah!

You have misunderstood the meaning of v.2.

The actual word order from the Greek says: "through whom also the access we have had by faith into this grace in which we stand, and boast on hope of hte glory of God"

There is nothing here referring to a display of the "regenerative power of God which is bringing about faith", as the OP claims. Instead, the verse tells us quite plainly that our access "into this grace" is "by faith" and "through whom" meaning "through Christ", the object of our faith.

iow, by faith in Christ, we have access into this grace and receive God's peace, noted in v.1. So, our peace with God is on the basis of grace and our faith in Christ.

Just as John 3:1-15 says nothing about regeneration preceding nor being necessary for faith, neither does Rom 5:1-2 say that.

We know for sure that believing the gospel precedes being saved, from Acts 16:31. We also know from 1 Jn 5:1, that the present participle "believing ones" occurs at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is "born again". So, believing and regeneration occur simultaneously. While Calvinists will argue that regeneration "logically" precedes believing, there are NO verses that plainly make that case.

 

[AndOne]

I have indeed shown scripture (twice now) that proves regeneration precedes faith. Your refutation is nothing more than a blatant denial - and you my friend are no Greek scholar - so don't waste your time trying to twist scripture around on the basis of some supposed expertise on Greek.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have indeed shown scripture (twice now) that proves regeneration precedes faith. Your refutation is nothing more than a blatant denial - and you my friend are no Greek scholar - so don't waste your time trying to twist scripture around on the basis of some supposed expertise on Greek.

You certainly are free to voice your own opinion, but as to exegesis, I did that for the verse you claim teaches regeneration preceding faith.

And your disagreement here is nothing of a refutation. My post WAS a refutation, as I explained what the verse actually SAID.

I never suggested I was a Greek scholar. I used an interlinear to provide the Greek word order. It doesn't take a scholar to read in interlinear.

And I twisted nothing. Your problem is that neither of your passages actually SAYS what you claim they SAY.

Disagreement is fine, but refutation is the key. You've not done that. In fact, your response reveals that quite clearly. You attacked me with ad hominem by your "you are no Greek scholar" (suggesting that I know nothing) and that I'm "wasting my time trying to twist Scripture".

You did not show or explain HOW I did what you claim. That's how you refute someone. Attacking does nothing but reveal your own weak position.

So, if you can refute my post, please proceed.

 

[AndOne]

You refuting nothing.... just sayin....

 

[FreeGrace2]

You refuting nothing.... just sayin....

Here's what I said:

You did not show or explain HOW I did what you claim. That's how you refute someone. Attacking does nothing but reveal your own weak position.

So, if you can refute my post, please proceed.

You refuted nothing. And you didn't address my points. Thank you for your tacit admission that you can't refute my post.

 

[AndOne]

I address and answered you points in the OP of this thread.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I address and answered you points in the OP of this thread.

Your OP was just an expressed opinion on whether regeneration preceded faith. Neither of the passages you noted prove that. Because neither of them addressed that issue. And you didn't point to any specific verses or words that would indicate that either one preceded the other.

Greek grammar rules state that present participles occur at the same time as the action of the main verb.

1 Jn 5:1 "the believing ones have been born again"

The 'believing ones' is a present participle. 'Born again' is the main verb.

They occur at the same time. Neither one precedes the other.

So your OP is refuted by Scripture.

 

[AndOne]

Your OP was just an expressed opinion on whether regeneration preceded faith. Neither of the passages you noted prove that. Because neither of them addressed that issue. And you didn't point to any specific verses or words that would indicate that either one preceded the other.

Greek grammar rules state that present participles occur at the same time as the action of the main verb.

1 Jn 5:1 "the believing ones have been born again"

The 'believing ones' is a present participle. 'Born again' is the main verb.

They occur at the same time. Neither one precedes the other.

So your OP is refuted by Scripture.

You are wrong.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You are wrong.

OK, an opinion. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, can you refute the Greek grammar rules that I just explained to you? The one that explains what 1 Jn 5:1 is saying?

 

[AndOne]

OK, an opinion. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, can you refute the Greek grammar rules that I just explained to you? The one that explains what 1 Jn 5:1 is saying?

I don't trust that you are an expert in Greek - therefore what you have to say on the topic of the Greek language is irrelevant. We are both using versions of the Bible interpreted by Greek scholars - I suggest you stick to the established experts or provided a credible source in the ancient Greek that backs up your claim on the use of the language. So far you have failed to do so.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't trust that you are an expert in Greek - therefore what you have to say on the topic of the Greek language is irrelevant.

If I was only giving you an opinion, I would certainly agree with you. But I wasn't giving my opinion. I was stating what Wm Mounce, author of "Greek for the Rest of Us", said about grammar rules regarding present participles and their relation to the action of the main verb. In fact, it was on page 184. btw, I never suggested that I was expert in Greek. That's WHY I defer to those who are.

We are both using versions of the Bible interpreted by Greek scholars - I suggest you stick to the established experts or provided a credible source in the ancient Greek that backs up your claim on the use of the language. So far you have failed to do so.

You can't understand the underlining relationship between words without knowing grammar rules. And just reading any particular translation doesn't provide that kind of information. All you are doing is dismissing grammar rules that provide proper understanding of how present participles relate to main verbs.

But that's rather convenient for you, huh. Especially since the rule refutes your claim.

But go ahead and stick with whatever translation you're comfortable with. I will continue to refer to experts who explain what is not apparent from the English.

 

[Dunbar]

I will premises this post by stating that when I say regeneration I believe it is the same thing as being born again. Being born is not the same thing as faith. They are two separate things and in order to have faith to be able to be saved you must be born again. This is clearly seen in Jesus' teachings in John 3:1-15.

So the idol worshipping Roman centurion whom Jesus said had 'great faith' was born again? haha...that's a good one.

 

[Lizabth]

So the idol worshipping Roman centurion whom Jesus said had 'great faith' was born again? haha...that's a good one.

Why is this a good one? Regeneration--->faith--->turning to his only Helper?
That's funny? I think it's quite glorious.

 

[Don Maurer]

Greek grammar rules state that present participles occur at the same time as the action of the main verb.

One correction on how you are misrepresenting Reformed theology.... Reformed people are not saying that the action of regeneration is before faith in time, but rather it is before regeneration in logical order. Regeneration is the cause of faith, but they both happen in the same instant.

Concerning the action of the main verb, the main verb is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense involves both past and present. It is a past action with results in the present. Since the participle is in the present tense, it is obvious that the verb γεγεννηται is the cause of πας ο πιστευων.

If you kept your interpretation consistently, it would result in some rather works oriented theology. Let me illustrate by using some other passages in 1 John.
1 John 2:29 - πας ο ποιων την δικαιοσυνην εξ αυτου γεγεννηται
The verb form here is identical to the one in 1 john 5:1. You also have the participal ο ποιων in the phrase πας ο ποιων την δικαιοσυνην. So then, going by your rule of interpretation, we must be righteous to be born again in 1 john 2:29.

To be consistent, if you say faith causes one to be born again, then you must also say that 1 John 2:29 teaches that one must first be righteous to be born again. Of course that would be the heresy of having a works oriented theology.

1 Jn 5:1 "the believing ones have been born again"

The 'believing ones' is a present participle. 'Born again' is the main verb.

They occur at the same time. Neither one precedes the other.

So your OP is refuted by Scripture.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of a failed argument. Since neither of us are talking about faith preceding regeneration or regeneration preceding faith in time, please do not obtuse things by suggesting otherwise. We are both talking about a logical order, not an order of time. You are saying that they happen at the same time, but that faith causes regeneration. We are saying that the scriptural teaching in 1 John 5:1 is teaching that regeneration is the cause of faith. We can also be consistent with 1 John 2:29 and regeneration also causes righteousness. On the other hand, if you are correct that faith is the cause of regeneration in 1 John 5:1 then you have a major issue in being consistent and interpreting the identical grammar of 1 John 2:29. Then righteousness must be the cause of regeneration and you have a works theology.

1 John 5:1 is really air tight. Now I leave it to you to ignore the main issue of your issue of being necessarily inconsistent with 1 John 2:29. Feel free to either ignore the post, or pick out some little issue and obtusify, or misrepresent Calvinistic interpretation of scriptures, and make accusations that Calvinists are already refuted and all the normal squawking that you do.

 

[DamonRambo]

Your OP was just an expressed opinion on whether regeneration preceded faith. Neither of the passages you noted prove that. Because neither of them addressed that issue. And you didn't point to any specific verses or words that would indicate that either one preceded the other.

Greek grammar rules state that present participles occur at the same time as the action of the main verb.

1 Jn 5:1 "the believing ones have been born again"

The 'believing ones' is a present participle. 'Born again' is the main verb.

They occur at the same time. Neither one precedes the other.

So your OP is refuted by Scripture.

I have 4 years of Biblical Greek, and I have never heard such a rule. Where on earth are you getting this from? Wallace?

"Has been born" is a perfect passive, indicating a past action performed ON the subject, not BY the subject. This sentence, as many Greek scholars will be quick to tell you, is a strong argument in favor of Faith following regeneration, no matter what you believe...

 

[DamonRambo]

If I was only giving you an opinion, I would certainly agree with you. But I wasn't giving my opinion. I was stating what Wm Mounce, author of "Greek for the Rest of Us", said about grammar rules regarding present participles and their relation to the action of the main verb. In fact, it was on page 184. btw, I never suggested that I was expert in Greek. That's WHY I defer to those who are.


You can't understand the underlining relationship between words without knowing grammar rules. And just reading any particular translation doesn't provide that kind of information. All you are doing is dismissing grammar rules that provide proper understanding of how present participles relate to main verbs.

But that's rather convenient for you, huh. Especially since the rule refutes your claim.

But go ahead and stick with whatever translation you're comfortable with. I will continue to refer to experts who explain what is not apparent from the English.

Please provide Mounce's quote. You are misreading him.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Please provide Mounce's quote. You are misreading him.

I will do so when I return from my trip out of state. I didn't bring Mounce with me. And I am not misreading him.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have 4 years of Biblical Greek, and I have never heard such a rule. Where on earth are you getting this from? Wallace?

"Has been born" is a perfect passive, indicating a past action performed ON the subject, not BY the subject. This sentence, as many Greek scholars will be quick to tell you, is a strong argument in favor of Faith following regeneration, no matter what you believe...

I think you have missed the point here. Yes, to be "born again" IS a passive action. We do not take part in it at all. God alone does the "rebirthing". But the issue is faith and regeneration.

All 1 Jn 5:1 is saying is that those who are presently believing (present participle) have been born again. I will quote Mounce when I return home on Monday.

 

[FreeGrace2]

One correction on how you are misrepresenting Reformed theology.... Reformed people are not saying that the action of regeneration is before faith in time, but rather it is before regeneration in logical order.

So, are you saying "it" (faith) is before regeneration in logical order?

Regeneration is the cause of faith, but they both happen in the same instant.

Where in the text do you find any cause of faith to be regeneration or anything else?

If you kept your interpretation consistently, it would result in some rather works oriented theology. Let me illustrate by using some other passages in 1 John.
1 John 2:29 - πας ο ποιων την δικαιοσυνην εξ αυτου γεγεννηται
The verb form here is identical to the one in 1 john 5:1. You also have the participal ο ποιων in the phrase πας ο ποιων την δικαιοσυνην. So then, going by your rule of interpretation, we must be righteous to be born again in 1 john 2:29.

No I don't make that claim, nor does what I've said about 1 Jn 5:1 result in that claim. If the verse has a present participle in "everyone participatiing righteousness", then it is saying that those who presently practice righteousness have been regenerated.

To be consistent, if you say faith causes one to be born again, then you must also say that 1 John 2:29 teaches that one must first be righteous to be born again. Of course that would be the heresy of having a works oriented theology.

And I haven't said that faith causes one to be born again. Please review what I have said about 1 Jn 5:1. So you have misunderstood me.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of a failed argument.

As well, misunderstanding is another hallmark of a failed argument. You are arguing against what I DON'T believe.

We are saying that the scriptural teaching in 1 John 5:1 is teaching that regeneration is the cause of faith.

Where do you see any "cause" in 1 Jn 5:1? All I see is that those who presently believe have been born again. What word make you think of regeneration causing anything?

We can also be consistent with 1 John 2:29 and regeneration also causes righteousness.

Again, not true, as real believers can be quite unrighteous as well. So your point isn't taken.

On the other hand, if you are correct that faith is the cause of regeneration in 1 John 5:1 then you have a major issue in being consistent and interpreting the identical grammar of 1 John 2:29. Then righteousness must be the cause of regeneration and you have a works theology.

Failed understanding = failed argument. Please review my actual view.

1 John 5:1 is really air tight. Now I leave it to you to ignore the main issue of your issue of being necessarily inconsistent with 1 John 2:29. Feel free to either ignore the post, or pick out some little issue and obtusify, or misrepresent Calvinistic interpretation of scriptures, and make accusations that Calvinists are already refuted and all the normal squawking that you do.

As you have by now noticed, I have not ignored your post, but please notice that I have pointed out your misunderstanding of my point.