Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

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?

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

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?

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is true in narrative, but not gnomic constructions. John isn't sequencing events; he's expressing a theological principle. Participles take their temporal reference from the main verb in narrative or temporal sequences, but in didactic discourse the contrast in aspect is the controlling factor. Requiring a future participle to express sequence is therefore a categorical mistake; Greek participles in gnomic statements convey relationship and aspect, not chronology.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is true in narrative, but not gnomic constructions. John isn't sequencing events; he's expressing a theological principle. Participles take their temporal reference from the main verb in narrative or temporal sequences, but in didactic discourse the contrast in aspect is the controlling factor. Requiring a future participle to express sequence is therefore a categorical mistake; Greek participles in gnomic statements convey relationship and aspect, not chronology.

Click to expand...

1. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13),
2. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” 14 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? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? (Ro 10:13–15), and
3. For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Co 1:21)

Dikaioumenoi said:

It seems you're introducing a bifurcation between the ongoing activity of saving faith and its origin. Is that a fair assessment of your view? If so, how do you argue for that from the text itself?

If we agree on the grammar of 1 John 5:1, I don't see the exegetical relevance of your distinction. John presents ὁ πιστεύων in a way that naturally includes both the ongoing nature of faith and its grounding in being born of God. It's a substantival characterization of the subject as "the believing one." What is true of "the believing one"? The perfect indicative, with its emphasis on the abiding result of a prior completed action, supplies the explanation of that characterization: their state as "believer" is grounded in God's prior work in them. To suggest that this prior work is itself contingent on the believer's own "faith and actions needed to obtain regeneration" effectively reverses the causal logic of John's statement.

Even in the Old Testament, those said to have "believed God" (e.g., Abraham) were accounted as righteous because of faith given and sustained by God, not because they generated it autonomously. The same principle applies across redemptive history: the origin of true faith is God's work, whether pre- or post-incarnation.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

No, the OP does not make any contention about temporal sequence. In fact, I specifically said in the OP that "this does not ... deny the simultaneous experience of these realities in human perception." The key point is that John's grammar expresses logical priority.


Correct, "when" is not the issue. John's point expresses a logical relationship, not a chronological sequence. The argument is not that believing "did not start in the past." The argument is that believing -- whenever it begins -- presupposes being born again as its logical cause. The one characterized as "the believing one" is so because he "has been born of God." That's what the grammar of the text is conveying.


Where have I argued for "believing after salvation"?

Your examples reflect a misunderstanding of the argument in the OP. Each of these verses uses aorists to describe events in experience or outward sequence, not gnomic statements employing a perfect passive indicative. The semantic core of the perfect tense in Greek denotes a completed past action with abiding results (think γέγραπται, "it is written..." -- literally, "has been written," emphasizing that the writing being quoted was completed in the past but continues to exist and remain relevant). This is distinct from a simple aorist, which typically narrates completed events without necessarily highlighting their effects.

Eph. 1:13 narrates the act of believing as completed by the time of sealing. This does not imply that the believer generated that ability independently. This text is fully consistent with the logical priority of sealing presupposing God enabling belief.

Rom. 10:13-15 addresses the outward hearing and calling of the gospel, not the internal, sovereign work of God producing faith. Again, fully consistent with the principle that those who believe do so because God has worked in them.

1 Cor. 1:21 emphasizes the effectiveness of God's wisdom in salvation. Belief is the channel through which salvation is experienced, yet this is still consistent with belief presupposing God's logically prior enabling work.

Nothing in these passages denies that regeneration underlies the believer's ability to respond. The logic of 1 John 5:1 (among other text we could go to as well) remains: faith does not originate independently but is God-given and effectual.

Click to expand...