Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

[Dikaioumenoi]

1 John 5:1a reads:

πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται
("Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God")

A few grammatical observations:

First, ὁ πιστεύων is a present active participle functioning substantively: "the one who is believing." The participle presents the subject, and describes a present, ongoing activity rather than a completed act of faith.

Second, γεγέννηται, the main verb of the clause, is a perfect passive indicative: "has been begotten" or "has been born [of God]." The perfect tense is more than just a "past" tense. Its aspectual function specifically points to a completed action in the past whose effects continue into the present.

When the two forms are set in relation to each other, especially with the present participle functioning substantively -- that is, as the subject of the main verb -- the natural sense is that the person who now believes does so as one who has already been born of God. The grammar, therefore, suggests a logical ordering in which the new birth precedes the act of believing.

This does not, of course, deny the simultaneous experience of these realities in human perception, but grammatically the text places regeneration as the root (the logical grounds) and believing as its fruit.

 

[Clare73]

1 John 5:1a reads:
πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται
("Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God")
A few grammatical observations:
First, ὁ πιστεύων is a present active participle functioning substantively: "the one who is believing." The participle presents the subject, and describes a present, ongoing activity rather than a completed act of faith.
Second, γεγέννηται, the main verb of the clause, is a perfect passive indicative: "has been begotten" or "has been born [of God]." The perfect tense is more than just a "past" tense. Its aspectual function specifically points to a completed action in the past whose effects continue into the present.

When the two forms are set in relation to each other, especially with the present participle functioning substantively -- that is, as the subject of the main verb -- the natural sense is that the person who now believes does so as one who has already been born of God. The grammar, therefore, suggests a logical ordering in which the new birth precedes the act of believing.
This does not, of course, deny the simultaneous experience of these realities in human perception, but grammatically the text places regeneration as the root (the logical grounds) and believing as its fruit.

It can be no other way, for man is spiritually dead in trespasses and sin until he is born again, and the spiritually dead, deaf, dumb and blind cannot see or understand anything spiritual without the Holy Spirit, it is all foolishness to him because he cannot understand it (1 Co 2:14).

 

[bling]

1 John 5:1a reads:

πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται
("Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God")

A few grammatical observations:

First, ὁ πιστεύων is a present active participle functioning substantively: "the one who is believing." The participle presents the subject, and describes a present, ongoing activity rather than a completed act of faith.

Second, γεγέννηται, the main verb of the clause, is a perfect passive indicative: "has been begotten" or "has been born [of God]." The perfect tense is more than just a "past" tense. Its aspectual function specifically points to a completed action in the past whose effects continue into the present.

When the two forms are set in relation to each other, especially with the present participle functioning substantively -- that is, as the subject of the main verb -- the natural sense is that the person who now believes does so as one who has already been born of God. The grammar, therefore, suggests a logical ordering in which the new birth precedes the act of believing.

This does not, of course, deny the simultaneous experience of these realities in human perception, but grammatically the text places regeneration as the root (the logical grounds) and believing as its fruit.

You quoted: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God"
The verse is not saying: "Believing in Jesus which comes from being born again", precedes the "faith/trust" needed for salvation.
If you could come believing in Jesus, you would have done something righteous, Holy, worthy, honorable and glorious, but the person coming can do none of that.
Believing in Jesus comes along with many huge gifts God showers on the believer (eternal live, Godly type Love, the indwelling Holy Spirit, fellowship, a Family and so on.
The "believer" comes like the prodigal son just turning from a hell bound life to maybe some kind of livable life, for the selfish (thus sinful) motive of wanting to live on even though he fully deserves to starve to death in a pigsty.
So, the faith/trust the sinner has is not yet in a glorious salvation, but the sinner has wimped out, given up on self and surrendered to his enemy. He trust and hopes in an undeserved Love.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

The verse is not saying: "Believing in Jesus which comes from being born again", precedes the "faith/trust" needed for salvation.

Do you mean the verse teaches the opposite order -- that faith precedes and causes being born of God? If so, what do you do with γεγέννηται? Why prefer a causal reading over the present-participle + prefect construction I outlined?

I have more to say on your other comments, but I'll refrain from now as I don't want the discussion to become unfocused. Let's start with the grammatical point I raised.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

The parable of the sower destroys this false teaching of regeneration preceding belief in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life.

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

The order believe and then be saved.

From Romans
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Faith come by hearing not by regeneration

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

-
​

The parable of the sower destroys this false teaching of regeneration preceding belief in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life.

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

The order believe and then be saved.

From Romans
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Faith come by hearing not by regeneration

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Neither of the texts you cite address the grammar or syntax of 1 John 5:1, which was the focus of the OP. Nor do the texts you cite define regeneration. Luke 8:12 describes the visible process of gospel hearing, belief, and salvation from a human vantage point. That's phenomenological, not ontological. Likewise, Paul's concern in Romans 10:14-17 is the means by which saving faith is produced -- namely, through the proclamation of the gospel. He is not denying that God must grant spiritual life for that hearing to be effectual.

So you're raising objections that deal with responses to the Word, not with the divine source of those responses. Luke 8 describes the phenomenology of belief, Romans 10 describes the instrumentality of belief, and 1 John 5:1 describes the causality of belief. Only the last of these addresses the question at hand.

I'd like to see you interact with the argument of the OP, please. The question on the table isn't whether faith precedes salvation experientially (it does), but what the grammar of John's statement teaches about the logical relation between faith and the new birth.

The perfect passive γεγέννηται ("has been born") denotes a completed past action with present results, while the present participle ὁ πιστεύων ("the one believing") describes the present activity of the person so born. The natural reading, therefore, is that belief evidences a prior divine begetting.

So I'll ask directly: are you suggesting that in this verse alone, standard Greek aspect and participial syntax simply don't apply? Or is it more reasonable to conclude that your interpretation of those other passages must be harmonized with the clear grammar here, rather than the other way around?

 

[bling]

Do you mean the verse teaches the opposite order -- that faith precedes and causes being born of God? If so, what do you do with γεγέννηται? Why prefer a causal reading over the present-participle + prefect construction I outlined?

I have more to say on your other comments, but I'll refrain from now as I don't want the discussion to become unfocused. Let's start with the grammatical point I raised.

There is the huge “Saving Faith” of: “Faith that Jesus is the Christ”, but there are other lesser “faiths”, “believes” and “trusts”.

We can trust the chair we are sitting in to hold us up or the pilot of the plane we are in.

People can have a faith/trust/believe in a stone “god”, so there is a lesser instinctive type of faith that humans have the free will to control and direct.

Trust/faith/believe that Jesus is the Messiah requires a gift from God (not instinctive), so, what allows or causes us to obtain such a gift?

This gets us into a lengthy exploration of Spiritual transactions, because things like Godly type Love, Forgiveness of sin, atonement and redemption are not just one-sided but require actions from both parties.

God is doing His part perfectly, so He Loves, forgives and provides redemption for everyone, but people continue to refuse God’s Love, forgiveness and redemption as pure undeserved charity to the point they will never of their own free will accept God’s Love and forgiveness, so they go to hell, since they would not be happy in a place of only Godly type Love.

It takes very little “faith/trust/believe” to overcome your false pride and accept God’s Love, to humbly accept pure undeserved charity as charity, when you desperately (selfishly) need charity, takes very little faith, but people naturally do not like to humble themselves to the point of accepting sacrificial charity.

Look again at the Prodigal Son story, what did the son do to be rewarded by his father?

Did the son believe his father and older brother would celebrate his return?

Was the son selfishly desiring something he totally did not deserve?

How great was the son’s faith in the father compared to his fear of starving to death in the pigsty?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

There is the huge “Saving Faith” of: “Faith that Jesus is the Christ”, but there are other lesser “faiths”, “believes” and “trusts”.

We can trust the chair we are sitting in to hold us up or the pilot of the plane we are in.

People can have a faith/trust/believe in a stone “god”, so there is a lesser instinctive type of faith that humans have the free will to control and direct.

Trust/faith/believe that Jesus is the Messiah requires a gift from God (not instinctive), so, what allows or causes us to obtain such a gift?

This gets us into a lengthy exploration of Spiritual transactions, because things like Godly type Love, Forgiveness of sin, atonement and redemption are not just one-sided but require actions from both parties.

God is doing His part perfectly, so He Loves, forgives and provides redemption for everyone, but people continue to refuse God’s Love, forgiveness and redemption as pure undeserved charity to the point they will never of their own free will accept God’s Love and forgiveness, so they go to hell, since they would not be happy in a place of only Godly type Love.

It takes very little “faith/trust/believe” to overcome your false pride and accept God’s Love, to humbly accept pure undeserved charity as charity, when you desperately (selfishly) need charity, takes very little faith, but people naturally do not like to humble themselves to the point of accepting sacrificial charity.

Look again at the Prodigal Son story, what did the son do to be rewarded by his father?

Did the son believe his father and older brother would celebrate his return?

Was the son selfishly desiring something he totally did not deserve?

How great was the son’s faith in the father compared to his fear of starving to death in the pigsty?

Thanks for your thoughts, but I still do not see any interaction with the argument of the OP. This thread concerns a grammatical point about 1 John 5:1.

You describe a "lesser faith" versus "saving faith," but can you show from the grammar or context of 1 John 5:1 that it supports such a distinction?

My point concerns the present participle ὁ πιστεύων and the perfect γεγέννηται. The one who is presently believing has already been born of God. That's what the grammar of the text says. Do you object to this?