Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

BNR32FAN · Monday at 11:29 AM

Dikaioumenoi said:
The connection to verse 20 doesn't exclude verses 25-26 or 35-36. It explains what triggered the entire discourse. The arrival of the Greeks in verse 20 is the narrative catalyst:

"Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip... and asked him, 'Sir, we wish to see Jesus.'" (John 12:20-21)

John deliberately isolates this event: "Now there were some Greeks..." (δὲ marks a narrative transition). He draws attention to them as a separate narrative unit before Jesus speaks again. The significance of it is that this is the first explicit mention of Gentiles seeking Jesus in John's Gospel. Up to this point, Jesus' ministry has been almost entirely within Israel. There had been occasional foreshadowings of Gentile inclusion (e.g., John 4:42), but this is the first time Gentiles are physically present and requesting audience with Jesus.

Jesus "answers them" (ἀποκρίνεται αὐτοῖς) in verse 23, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." The Greeks' arrival is what provokes this declaration. It is the event that marks the shift from "My hour has not yet come" (2:4; 7:30; 8:20) to "The hour has come" (12:23). So the arrival of these Gentiles signifies the transition from a Jewish-restricted mission to a universal one. Everything that follows Jesus' declaration in v. 23 unfolds as His theological exposition of this turning point.

Verses 25-26 develop the implications of His glorification (the necessity of death leading to life), while verse 32 gives its climactic significance: He being "lifted up" will effect a drawing of all kinds of people: Jew and Gentile alike, not Jew only. That's why John mentions the Greeks at all. They are the narrative signal that the redemptive focus is expanding beyond Israel.

The logic of the discourse is:

vv. 20-23 - The Greeks arrive --> "the hour has come."
vv. 24-26 - The principle of life through death (the grain of wheat).
vv. 27-33 - The meaning of Christ's death: the cross as the means of universal (not Jewish-only) gospel appeal.
vv. 35-36 - The closing exhortation: believe in the Light while it is among you.

The meaning of "draws" (ἑλκύω) and the scope of those drawn are not determined by the exhortation. In this context, the verb concerns the inclusion of all kinds of people; that is, kinds without distinction, not individuals without exception. Jesus is announcing the ingathering of both Jews and Gentiles into one redeemed people, not the universal salvation (or attempt at it) of every individual. Moreover, the semantic core of ἑλκύω is forceful or powerful, not merely inviting. The core idea it expresses is the decisive movement from one state or sphere to another. Thus, when Jesus declares, "I will draw all people to myself," He is not describing a mere attempt to persuade; He is proclaiming the certain efficacy of His redemptive work: the power of the cross to extend through the gospel to all nations and to bring people of every kind to genuine faith in Him. If that "drawing" is taken to refer to individuals without exception, the text would be teaching universalism.

Really because it doesn’t sound like He’s proclaiming “certain efficacy” in verse 36.

“While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.” These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them.”
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭36‬ ‭NASB1995

It sounds like He’s telling that if they believe they MAY BECOME sons of Light. Why doesn’t He word it in a manner that is more certain instead of conditional? And I would point out that becoming a son of Light is synonymous with being born again. So this is another verse that rivals your interpretation of 1 John 5:1. I would say that this statement parallels John 1:12.

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”
‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This statement has always been a controversy between Calvinists and Arminians over which takes place first, but John 12:36 settles that argument by making it clear which sequence these events take place in.

BNR32FAN · Monday at 12:21 PM

Dikaioumenoi said:
No further engagement with my comments on John 6:44 or 12:32? Before we begin a round of "what about this verse," we should establish whether those passages have been adequately addressed. Skipping over arguments already presented doesn't advance your case. Certainly you're not suggesting that texts like Ezekiel 33:11 and 2 Peter 3:9 contradict John 6:44? Yet if you ignore the arguments already presented, your position amounts to suggesting as much. So can you demonstrate exegetically how your interpretation of those verses coheres with John's teaching there?

No my point is that if we take the information given in all of these passages and put it all together we can make better deductions about how the verses were intended to be interpreted. The statement made in John 6:44 contradicts Jesus’ statement made in John 12:32. So the only way to determine what He actually meant is thru deductive reasoning. Ezekiel 33:11 gives us a very important piece of information about what God desires. Genesis 5:5-6 also affirms the same thing, that God does not want man to be disobedient and desires them to repent and believe which is precisely what 2 Peter 3:9 says. So interpreting 2 Peter 3:9 in isolation of the information given to us in Genesis 6:5-6 and Ezekiel 33:11 allows for an alternative interpretation, but when you incorporate the information given in all of these passages of scripture it rules out the possibility of God only being patient with those He intends to save. Even Romans 9:22 and Romans 2:4-5 rule out this interpretation.

“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭22‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

These two passages prove that God is patient with those who are destined for destruction and the purpose of His patience is in hope that they would repent which follows along with 2 Peter 3:9 perfectly. Ezekiel 33:11 echoes this exact same message.

“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭33‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

All of these passages together form a very strong, if not irrefutable concept, that God is in fact patient with ALL MEN not desiring for any to perish but that they would repent and be saved.

John 6:44 is completely different situation that took place during Christ’s ministry during the time when God had blinded those who didn’t believe the words of the prophets in order to bring about Christ’s crucifixion so that they would shout “crucify Him” in order to complete God’s plan of redemption. Calvinists often fail to notice this or refuse to accept it but it’s mentioned all throughout the New Testament and was prophesied in the Old Testament in Isaiah. In Mark 4:11-12 Jesus quotes from Isaiah when He said

“And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭4‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He’s quoting Isaiah 6

“He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate, The Lord has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.””
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He quotes Isaiah again in John 12

“This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭38‬-‭48‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In John 5

“And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭37‬-‭47‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Then in John 6:44-45

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭44‬-‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus didn’t just say that no one could come to Him unless The Father draws them, He included the prophecy that those who believed the words of the prophets would come to Him. This is why some were not permitted to come to Him during His ministry.

bling · Monday at 1:45 PM

tdidymas said:
I'm no longer going to respond to you, because all you're doing is looking for yet more objections to what I say in complete disregard of the scripture I cite. This means to me that all you want to do is argue about the matter. Consider this my last response.

1. Eph. 2:8 tells us that salvation, grace, and faith all go together. It's a complete package which is the gift of God, and you cannot separate them in reality. If you think you can have one without the other, then you err. Therefore, faith is as much the gift of God as the grace and the salvation.

In Eph. 2 :8 Salvation is by grace in response to the person’s faith and not by the person’s works.

tdidymas said:
2. The whole premise of your argument is that a person must yield to a series of influences in which he comes to faith (naturally) in God. But this idea is meritorious by nature, as it assumes that God is looking to the individual to decide on saving them. Then it would be payment or reward for doing something that pleases God or that meets criteria for salvation. Then grace is no longer grace, because NT grace is unmerited. What you are describing is something meritorious. You keep asking the same question repeatedly, "what does God use to determine who He will and will not rescue" which tells me you think God decides who He will save based on what a person does or thinks, which is meritorious by nature.

Sin is never meritorious and acting out of selfish motivation is a sin.

tdidymas said:
3. God's "arbitrary choice" of who He saves is His own prerogative, but you don't believe it because you haven't carefully read and exegeted Rom. 9. I cite whole chapters because the truth is found in the context, not in a few prooftext verses.

Here is Romans 9 explanation:

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9:14, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all Paul’s and Psalms diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand how Paul, uses diatribes and think, since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

Think further about this: The Jews (thinking the gentiles were dogs) would support their distant for the Gentiles by pointing out to them how God: loved Jacob, a Jew, and hated Esau, a gentile, plus Jacob and Ishmael, Moses and Pharoah and with other OT true stories. Those true stories would thus be formular to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, showing the Jews were special and the Gentiles were just common.

If God treaded you as privileged and special, would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common, while others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles)which would be “one of you”.

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Romans. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction, since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah 18 uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two finished pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?

Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

Dikaioumenoi · Monday at 2:30 PM

bling said:
This idea of “election” prior to the individual’s involvement was not popular until Calvin

Historically false (Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum, and other Church Fathers), and also irrelevant. Our question is exegetical, not historical.

bling said:
so we are really talking about “Free Will”, but some have redefined free will so we could be using the same word with different meanings.

How does one "redefine" a term that doesn't come from Scripture? The only "freedom" Scripture attributes to human choice concerns the will's voluntary nature, not moral ability. No one disputes the former. The "free will" debate hinges on the latter: man is enslaved to sin (John 6:44; 8:34; Rom. 8:7-8) and is incapable of choosing righteousness until God draws and regenerates him.

You can interact with my argument on John 6:44 if you disagree (see posts #35 and/or #75).

If you decline to engage with the textual argumentation I have laid out -- or, alternatively, agree with it but fail to provide any didactic scriptural examples supporting your claim that a sinful, self-interested act can motivate God to regenerate a person -- then there is nothing substantive left to discuss.

bling said:
Exodus 35:29 All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the Lord freewill offerings for all the work the Lord through Moses had commanded them to do.

John 7: 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

...

Deuteronomy 30:19 says “This day, I call upon the heaven and the earth as witnesses [that I have warned] you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, so that you and your offspring will live.”

Irrelevant prooftexts. None of this addresses spiritually dead humanity. Exodus 35:29 concerns covenant members already addressed as God's people. John 7:17 assumes divine enablement ("if anyone wills to do God's will," the condition of willingness itself presupposes grace; cf. John 6:44). Deut. 30:19 exhorts regenerate Israel to covenant fidelity.

bling said:
Gen 3 has Adam and Eve making choices, so if they could have free will why can none of us have free will.

The very fact that you ask this question suggests you are not giving careful attention to the responses already provided in this discussion, whether from myself or others. Adam and Eve exercised free will before the Fall; the issue is humanity's condition afterward. The problem, again, is moral inability, not the mere capacity to make a volitional choice.

You will likely respond, as you have several times, that you agree passages like Rom. 8:7-8 teach moral inability, but that, from your perspective, man can still perform a "self-interested act of receiving charity as charity." Yet you have provided zero didactic examples from Scripture demonstrating this principle, and you also have not answered my questions to you regarding why God would respond favorably (granting regeneration) to a sinful act.

bling said:
I do not see how man fulfills his earthly objective without free will (obtaining, using and growing Godly type Love). What do you see as man’s earthly objective?

I'm still awaiting your own response to this question. See post #70.

bling said:
For man to have Godly type Love he has to have free will or the “love” is some lesser type of “love”. An instinctive or programmed into man type of love would be a robotic type love...

Regeneration does not coerce love; it creates it. God does not force affection; He renews the heart so that it genuinely delights in Him (Ezek 36:26-27; Phil. 2:13). Love from a new heart is freer, not less free, than love from one enslaved to sin.

bling said:
But what morals and spiritual capability is needed to selfishly (sinfully) accept charity as charity?

Already addressed. Either interact with the reasoning in the final paragraph of my previous reply, or please refrain from asking further.

You have still not answered a question I have asked multiple times:

"Are you suggesting that a sinful act of self-interest somehow elicits God's grace?"

bling said:
Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

These 3000 on Pentecost, were not accepting God’s Love at this point, but were experiencing a death blow to their hearts, because of the bad they had done. Accepting the fact they had murdered the Messiah, is reaching the bottom of life’s pit. Accept the evil they had done is not worthy of anything good from God and they should be expecting lightning to come from heaven destroying them.

These 3000 cried for help (repent [turn]) like the prodigal son and showed a strong willingness to be relieved from a painful heart, but they fully deserve to feel the way they do and for God to have them destroyed right then. It is hard to believe they would not accept Peter’s/God’s help, but some seem to have gone on rejecting God’s help.

These 3000 experienced a huge need for God’s help and just accepted that help.

Your reading reverses Luke's sequence and misidentifies the cause of conviction. The "cut to the heart" (κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν) is not a self-generated act of repentance; it is a passive verb, describing what was done to them. God is the agent. This is the first evidence of the Spirit's regenerating work promised in Acts 2:17-18, 33, and explicitly stated in John 16:8-9 ("He will convict the world concerning sin...").

Their cry, "What shall we do?" is the result of that Spirit-wrought conviction, not the cause of it. There is no hint that their emotional distress or "strong willingness" elicited regeneration; rather, that distress is the fruit of regeneration already occurring. Their repentance and faith in v. 41 ("those who received his word were baptized") flow from the inward transformation that had just pierced their hearts.

So the text does not depict sinful self-interest summoning grace; it depicts sovereign grace wounding the heart unto repentance. Their experience of conviction is evidence that the Spirit had already begun the saving work Peter described when he said, "the promise is for you... everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (v. 39). If man's self-interest could move God to regenerate, grace would cease to be grace.

bling said:
It takes a fool to not believe in a god, so they can be spiritual death without being a fool for not all unbelievers are fools.

Being selfish to the point of being humbly willing to accept pure undeserved charity, very much a possible action for a Spiritually dead person.

Every time a “choice” is given in scripture, I see them as free will choices, so are you declaring man does not have free will and we need to look into this?

You're conflating moral psychology with biblical anthropology. Scripture's statement, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 14:1), is gnomic. You cannot exegetically extrapolate from this a subclass of "non-foolish unbelievers." The fool represents the archetype of the unregenerate, illustrating the spiritual state of all who reject God, not an optional subset of the unsaved. This is how Paul interprets it in Romans 3:10-18.

"Selfish unwillingness to accept charity" isn't a biblical category of repentance or faith. I've asked you repeatedly to show this from didactic texts, and you won't answer. Can you please do so? Or are we done here?

Equivocating again on the term "free will." See above comments.

bling said:
Are you not the one “speculating”/assuming, that man does not have free will?

No. Argument and speculation are two different things. See my treatment of John 6:44 (links above).

bling said:
How is that not saying: “God is arbitrary in His choice of who to save?”

Because "arbitrary" and "sovereign" don't mean the same thing. An arbitrary choice is one without reason. Eph. 1:5, 9, 11 states a reason.

bling said:
You say: “If regeneration depended on a pre-regenerate difference in men, salvation would be meritorious”, which is not true. There can be differences which are not righteous, noble, honorable, and worthy of anything good.

Irrelevant. The nature of the difference doesn't matter. If any pre-regenerate distinction between two people explains why God responds a certain way to one and not the other, that distinction becomes the decisive cause of salvation. That's merit by another name.

bling said:
The cross like everything else, God does, is to help willing individuals in the fulfilling of their objective. What else would you see God doing to help willing individuals?

That's precisely where we differ. Scripture never depicts God as assisting "willing individuals" toward salvation. You keep claiming it does, but you won't provide any textual demonstration of this. Apart from grace, "no one seeks for God" (Rom. 3:11). The natural man "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God... and he is not able to understand them" (1 Cor. 2:14). "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7-8). "No one can come" to Jesus "unless drawn by the Father" (John 6:44). It's beginning to look like you just don't believe Scripture. I can't get you to engage with the text.

You also won't tell me what "fulfilling of their objective" means to you. What is man's objective? I've asked, you won't answer.

bling said:
Free will is a huge topic which I do not mind discussing, but you did not address the question which has to do with the need for free will:

What is your understanding of man's earthly objective?

You did not ask me this question prior to this point. I asked you this question, and never got a response.

bling said:
Can the spiritual dead make choices between the sins he will do or does God make them for him?

You're trying to reframe the discussion on freedom. I've been clear on this. The spiritually dead can and do make choices. God does not "make choices for" anybody. Their will is active, not absent. But it is morally corrupt. They freely choose according to what they desire, but their desires are bound to rebellion.

bling said:
No. The son’s coming to his senses has nothing to do with the father (he could have been a lousy father), but it has everything to do with the son starving to death in the pigsty.

The parable itself demolishes the "it was all the son's self-preservation" line. The father sees him while he is still far off, runs to him, embraces him, and restores him, before the son finishes his apology. Luke's point is unilateral mercy that meets and overwhelms human need, not a portrait of a sinner who first engineers his salvation by feeling hungry enough. If you want to make the prodigal the text's hero, you're reading the parable backwards.

Your reading is eisegesis bordering on textual abuse, all driven by the presumption that God cannot be the cause of why some move toward Him and others do not. You can't provide me with a single didactic text elsewhere in Scripture that supports your theory that a sinful, self-interested act of man can motivate God to regenerate him. I've asked, you won't give it. So our discussion is done, unless you'd like to start answering my challenges to you.

bling said:
Like the prodigal son when an unregenerated sinner comes to his sense it is not because he believes he will be showered with unbelievable wonderful gifts, but his coming to his senses is mainly to possibly get out of starving to death in the pigsty of life, which he fully deserves to have happen to him.

Does your Bible consist of more than Luke 15?

Dikaioumenoi · Monday at 6:00 PM

BNR32FAN said:
ok so what about Simon Magus in Acts 8? The passage doesn’t differentiate any difference between his belief and the rest of the people who believed. And you quoted 1 Corinthians 2:14 when Paul wrote that in reference to the behavior of the Corinthians in chapter 3. If you read the next 6 verses you’ll see that. Luke 8:13 is just describing and example that Jesus often spoke of which was some believers will turn away. That’s why we have passages like John 15:1-7 and Matthew chapter 10 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13. In Matthew 10 Jesus was telling the 12 not to fall away in times of tribulation and in 2 Timothy 2:11-13 Paul was telling Timothy the same thing. Both Jesus and Paul expressed real consequences for falling away. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Do not fear those who are able to kill the body but are unable to kill the soul. Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. If we deny Him, He will deny us. That statement right there is written about two true believers. So if Paul and Jesus taught the doctrines of TULIP why aren’t they applying those doctrinal aspects to these statements? Oh and the same can be said about James 5:19-20.

"What-aboutism" and scatter-gunning prooftexts is no way to advance a discussion. None of this is exegesis; it's assertion. You're not taking time to establish why your reading is demanded by the grammar, context, or argument of these passages, nor are you interacting with my own exegesis. So what precisely do you want me to respond to here? How about starting with one or two of these verses and interacting with the syntax, flow of thought, and historical setting, to show what the author is actually asserting in context. Then we can go from there. I'm not going to spend more time "responding" to unargued claims when there are still plenty of exegetical points of my own -- points that contradict everything you're saying here - that have not yet been engaged with.

Regarding 1 Cor. 2:14, please interact with my comments to Spiritual Jew in post #54. You're making the same error they did.

BNR32FAN said:
But is their unbelief the result of them being judged already? That’s the point of quoting the passage? Is the tense of the verbs dictating sequence?

What kind of sequence? The tense-forms in John 3:18 are not about temporal sequence, but logical condition or state. The perfect κέκριται ("has been judged") expresses a completed divine verdict already in place; the present participle ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ("the one not believing") identifies who that verdict presently applies to: those characterized by unbelief. It's a matter of categorical identity. The logic is, "whoever does not believe (present state) is already judged (settled verdict)."

BNR32FAN said:
Would the jailer have been saved if he didn’t believe? The passage specifically states that in order for the jailer to be saved he must first believe. You’re saying that the jailer was already saved before he believed which is not what the passage says at all.

This is answered in the very portion of my reply you were quoting:

Define "saved." Regeneration is one aspect of the ordo salutis, not the totality of the salvation package. This text describes the outward, experiential moment of salvation (the human response of faith), not the ontological reality of regeneration. There's nothing here contradicting the position that the jailer's belief is the visible fruit of what God has already wrought inwardly.

Same thing with Gal 3:14, Rom. 10:9, 13. Why are you equating "salvation" / "promise" with regeneration?

What more do you need me to say? You didn't answer my question you quoted. Define what you mean by "saved." Why are you equating the term "salvation" with regeneration? That hints at a misunderstanding of what my argument is, hence the question.

BNR32FAN said:
But they do in fact clearly indicate that verb tense doesn’t imply sequence which is what you’re whole argument is based on.

No, my argument is not based on verb tense "implying sequence." I clarified this in the middle portion of the reply you were quoting here, which you conveniently chose not to respond to. Where is your interaction with what I pointed out about the 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 parallels?

BNR32FAN said:
Really because it doesn’t sound like He’s proclaiming “certain efficacy” in verse 36.

...

It sounds like He’s telling that if they believe they MAY BECOME sons of Light. Why doesn’t He word it in a manner that is more certain instead of conditional?

What you're doing is eisegetical atomism. You're isolating one verse, talking about how it "sounds," and using that as an objection to dismiss everything I just took the time to argue from the context and grammar of the pericope. That's not a serious way to respond.

Your objection doesn't articulate anything that my argument did not already sufficiently answer. You're conflating exhortation language (v. 36) with redemptive result language (v. 32). You're also completely disregarding the discourse hierarchy I pointed out: v. 32 gives the theological outcome of the cross; v. 36 gives the ethical summons to the hearers in light of that outcome. You can disagree all you like, but this does answer the objection you gave. So once again, your reply doesn't advance the discussion.

What specifically do you disagree with about my exegesis of John 12, and why? Do you disagree that the arrival of the Greeks is the narrative trigger? Do you disagree that the ensuing discourse explains the theological significance of Jesus' "hour," namely, that it will effect the drawing of all kinds of people? Do you disagree that the verb ἑλκύω conveys efficacious movement from one state to another, not mere invitation? Merely quoting v. 36 as if conditional language erases the meaning of v. 32 doesn't interact with any of the exegesis I provided. It's dismissive.

BNR32FAN said:
And I would point out that becoming a son of Light is synonymous with being born again. So this is another verse that rivals your interpretation of 1 John 5:1. I would say that this statement parallels John 1:12.

Why? What's your textual argument for declaring the two to be synonymous? Why wouldn't it be synonymous with justification? Or adoption? Or something else? Why regeneration? Declaring it doesn't prove it.

BNR32FAN said:
No my point is that if we take the information given in all of these passages and put it all together we can make better deductions about how the verses were intended to be interpreted.

This is syncretism, not synthesis. You're skipping the exegetical step that determines what each passage actually means in its own context before correlating them. Theological synthesis must come after exegesis, not instead of it.

You're pretending that your "bigger picture" reading is the higher ground, but you can't get the "whole counsel of God" by shortcutting the counsel of the text you're actually in. When you use Ezekiel or 2 Peter to cancel what Jesus explicitly says in John, you're not harmonizing Scripture with Scripture; you're forcing other material to reinterpret revelation on the basis of your system. You can interact with the grammatical and contextual reasoning I've already offered on these texts if you choose to continue discussing. Otherwise, I'll take your non-response as a concession of the points I raised, in which case the discussing in finished.

BNR32FAN said:
The statement made in John 6:44 contradicts Jesus’ statement made in John 12:32. So the only way to determine what He actually meant is thru deductive reasoning.

Jesus contradicts Himself?

The only way these verses contradict is if ἑλκύω means the same thing in both contexts and refers to the same scope of people in the same sense, which it manifestly does not. I've shown this and you've not interacted with the argument for it, so...

BNR32FAN said:
John 6:44 is completely different situation that took place during Christ’s ministry during the time when God had blinded those who didn’t believe the words of the prophets in order to bring about Christ’s crucifixion so that they would shout “crucify Him” in order to complete God’s plan of redemption.

Where in John 6 does the text state, or even imply, that Jesus' words there are limited to those "blinded to bring about the crucifixion"?

BNR32FAN said:
In Mark 4:11-12 Jesus quotes from Isaiah when He said

“And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭4‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He’s quoting Isaiah 6

“He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate, The Lord has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.””
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He quotes Isaiah again in John 12

“This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭38‬-‭48‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In John 5

“And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭37‬-‭47‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Where in these texts does it say that God blinds people to prevent belief as part of the broader pattern you're claiming?

BNR32FAN said:
Then in John 6:44-45

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭44‬-‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus didn’t just say that no one could come to Him unless The Father draws them, He included the prophecy that those who believed the words of the prophets would come to Him. This is why some were not permitted to come to Him during His ministry.

Again, I've already demonstrated why your interpretation of neither of these verses works. I addressed both in this post. Those drawn are all effectually saved, and those "taught by God" have received the benefits of the teaching. See my argument at the linked post. Show me where I've erred.

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-04T03:01:13-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
"What-aboutism" and scatter-gunning prooftexts is no way to advance a discussion. None of this is exegesis; it's assertion. You're not taking time to establish why your reading is demanded by the grammar, context, or argument of these passages, nor are you interacting with my own exegesis. So what precisely do you want me to respond to here? How about starting with one or two of these verses and interacting with the syntax, flow of thought, and historical setting, to show what the author is actually asserting in context. Then we can go from there. I'm not going to spend more time "responding" to unargued claims when there are still plenty of exegetical points of my own -- points that contradict everything you're saying here - that have not yet been engaged with.

Like what for example? Be specific, what do you want me to address that I haven’t already addressed?

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-04T03:16:28-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
What kind of sequence? The tense-forms in John 3:18 are not about temporal sequence, but logical condition or state. The perfect κέκριται ("has been judged") expresses a completed divine verdict already in place; the present participle ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ("the one not believing") identifies who that verdict presently applies to: those characterized by unbelief. It's a matter of categorical identity. The logic is, "whoever does not believe (present state) is already judged (settled verdict)."

Right but the point of quoting the verse was to provide examples in scripture where verb tenses don’t always dictate a sequence of events. That was your argument for 1 John 5:1 that the tense of the verb in the Greek language mandates the sequence. I’m showing you examples that are the exact same tenses and yet the sequence is reversed. The unbelievers in John 3:18 aren’t unbelieving as a result of already being judged they were already judged because of their unbelief. Just like the Israelites who were blinded during Christ’s ministry because of their unbelief were already judged according to the prophecy in Isaiah. God had foreseen their unbelief and as a result they were not allowed to receive Christ’s message. Their action was the cause of their judgment, their judgment wasn’t the cause of their action.

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-04T03:19:40-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
This is answered in the very portion of my reply you were quoting:

Define "saved." Regeneration is one aspect of the ordo salutis, not the totality of the salvation package. This text describes the outward, experiential moment of salvation (the human response of faith), not the ontological reality of regeneration. There's nothing here contradicting the position that the jailer's belief is the visible fruit of what God has already wrought inwardly.Same thing with Gal 3:14, Rom. 10:9, 13. Why are you equating "salvation" / "promise" with regeneration?
What more do you need me to say? You didn't answer my question you quoted. Define what you mean by "saved." Why are you equating the term "salvation" with regeneration? That hints at a misunderstanding of what my argument is, hence the question.

Are you suggesting that God regenerates people who aren’t saved? I don’t understand what your point is.

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-04T03:28:39-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
A logical sequence is naturally implicit in the Greek perfect when paired with a substantival present participle. The Greek perfect encodes a completed action with continuing results, and a present substantival participle denotes an ongoing, characteristic state or activity of the subject. When these occur together, the syntax inherently implies a logical relationship between the completed and the ongoing. That is, the state expressed by the participle exists in connection to the completed action of the perfect.

The direction and emphasis of that sequence (causal, evidential, resultant, etc.) is a question of context, but the conceptual movement from completed action to ongoing state is inherent in the syntax.

Then why aren’t you applying that same grammatical principle to John 3:18? If what you’re saying is true then the unbelievers in John 3:18 are unbelieving because they have already been judged. It’s the same verb tense being used in 1 John 5:1 so why aren’t you applying this same principle to John 3:18 that you’re applying to 1 John 5:1?

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-04T03:30:23-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
That's not how aspect works. The present participle ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ("the one not believing") describes one's present, ongoing state of unbelief, not their past or future category. John contrasts two groups as they now stand: those believing (ὁ πιστεύων) and those not believing (ὁ μὴ πιστεύων). The point is qualitative distinction, not outcome.

The outcome is that they are already judged. That’s the outcome. So why doesn’t your claim about verb tenses for “he who does not believe is already judged” follow that same principle you’re using in 1 John 5:1?

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-04T03:45:54-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
We need to be precise about what kind of believing you mean. Superficial assent is not saving faith. Luke 8:13 describes hearers who "received the word with joy" but "have no firm root." That's the language of a "belief" that is superficial and non-saving. That's precisely why Jesus gives the parable; He's distinguishing outward professions from inward, abiding faith.

We also need to be precise about what you mean by "ability." There are two kinds. Everyone has the natural, cognitive ability to assent to a proposition (e.g., "that might be true"), and some can even be emotionally moved to confess belief for a time. That is not the same as the spiritual ability to embrace Christ as Lord and live on that basis. Asserting that natural man has that ability is a contradiction of John 6:44; 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-8.

A logical sequence is naturally implicit in the Greek perfect when paired with a substantival present participle. The Greek perfect encodes a completed action with continuing results, and a present substantival participle denotes an ongoing, characteristic state or activity of the subject. When these occur together, the syntax inherently implies a logical relationship between the completed and the ongoing. That is, the state expressed by the participle exists in connection to the completed action of the perfect.

The direction and emphasis of that sequence (causal, evidential, resultant, etc.) is a question of context, but the conceptual movement from completed action to ongoing state is inherent in the syntax.

Yes, but it's not a direct parallel to 1 John 5:1. See below.

That's not how aspect works. The present participle ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ("the one not believing") describes one's present, ongoing state of unbelief, not their past or future category. John contrasts two groups as they now stand: those believing (ὁ πιστεύων) and those not believing (ὁ μὴ πιστεύων). The point is qualitative distinction, not outcome.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The point isn't that the perfect tense itself dictates causality (tense doesn't do that). The issue is the semantic and syntactical relationship between the substantival participle and the perfect verb. Perfects in Greek carry two inherent components:

Past completed action

Resultant state

Every perfect verb conveys both, but which aspect is foregrounded is context-dependent. In 1 John 5:1, the present participle functions as the subject of the perfect verb. Syntactically, the participle identifies the entity that underwent the completed action. The semantic point is that this perfect ("has been born") is not merely describing an ongoing resultant state of faith, but instead describes a completed action that is ontologically necessary for the present participial state to exist.

The syntactical relationship is the same in John 3:18, but semantically what is foregrounded there is the resultant state of judgment. The perfect κέκριται ("has been judged") emphasizes the completed state: God's judicial verdict over human sin. That "completion" doesn't necessarily mean an event at a single moment; rather, it can point to the ongoing consequences of humanity's fallen condition, which is rooted in Adam's sin and the natural hostility of the unregenerate toward God (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1-3). So the judgment can still be linked to the prior ontological reality of the sinner's inherent unbelief and moral culpability. What the participle does is describe the ongoing manifestation of that state. John's focus contextually is on the present unbelief as the evidence and lived experience of that judgment.

1 John 2:29 reinforces the point about 5:1. John employs the same grammatical construction -- almost the identical phrase -- only substituting ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ("everyone who practices righteousness") for "everyone who believes." This is a repeated grammatical pattern in 1 John; he's deliberately making a point with it. So whatever interpretation is applied to 5:1 must be applied consistently to 2:29. Even if one were to grant your point regarding John 3:18, it does not alter John's consistent usage in 1 John. Can anyone truly practice righteousness prior to being born again, or is such practice necessarily a consequence of the new birth?

1 John 4:7 provides another example. The text reads, "whoever loves (πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν) has been born (γεγέννηται) of God." If this were taken to mean that those who love are consequently born again, then we encounter a problem: how are we defining "love"? If it is meant generically, then every human would be born again, since all humans can exercise some form of love. But the context clearly points to Godly love, rooted in fellowship with God. So... can this specific, Godly love exist prior to being born of God? If faith, righteousness, and Godly love are all things humans can exercise prior to regeneration, then what is the purpose of regeneration at all?

In hindsight, I could have stated my argument better in the OP, so I appreciate the pushback. But the underlying point remains valid.

Define "saved." Regeneration is one aspect of the ordo salutis, not the totality of the salvation package. This text describes the outward, experiential moment of salvation (the human response of faith), not the ontological reality of regeneration. There's nothing here contradicting the position that the jailer's belief is the visible fruit of what God has already wrought inwardly.

Same thing with Gal 3:14, Rom. 10:9, 13. Why are you equating "salvation" / "promise" with regeneration?

Acts 16:30-31, Rom. 10, Gal. 3 are narrative contexts that use aorists to describe how people experience salvation. These show experiential order; they do not settle the ontological question of what makes the human subject able to believe in the first place.

You still have to explain how your interpretation of 1 John 5:1 doesn’t contradict John 12:36.

“While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.” These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them.”
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭36‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Why is Jesus telling these people that they have to believe in order to become sons of the Light? Becoming a child of God is synonymous with being born again, it’s the exact same thing. You’re saying that they have to be born again in order to believe according to 1 John 5:1 and nothing in that passage gives any indication that being born again is the cause of their belief. 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. John 12:36 specifically tells us exactly which event takes place and which event caused the other.

NewLifeInChristJesus · 2025-11-04T13:44:22-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
Your engagement in this discussion has been more assertive and accusatory than substantive interaction with anything I've actually laid out. If this conversation is to be productive, I would ask that your further comments focus on engaging the argument and the textual evidence directly.

Regarding your claim that "it is improper to place the time of action of present participles after the time of action of the main verb," I already answered this in posts #12 and #17. You did not meaningfully engage with either element of that answer. What I originally pointed out to you was that this principle you're wanting to invoke (that "present participles have the same time of action as the main verb," to use your original wording) is basically true in narrative or temporal discourse, but not in gnomic or didactic statements. It's pretty obvious why: in gnomic contexts, the main verb itself isn't describing a point in time. It expresses a timeless, axiomatic reality. That's what a gnomic/didactic statement is. So, when you universalize the rule, you're trying to attach a "time of action" to something that doesn't have one. It's like timing a definition with a stopwatch.

Additionally, from your "response" in post #15 until now, you have continued to introduce this confusion between logical relationship and temporal sequence. The OP itself distinguishes the two, clarifying that this isn't an argument for temporal sequence. You either missed or ignored that. I corrected you on it in post #17 when you misrepresented my position as concerning a chronological sequence of events. You ignored that too. Now, you're still ignoring it. You're caricaturing the argument to fit the objection you want to give. Do you understand the difference between logical and chronological relationships?

Another gnomic example (just one of many we could go to):

1 Peter 2:6 - "...the one believing (ὁ πιστεύων, present participle) in Him will not be put to shame (καταισχυνθῇ, aorist subjunctive)."

The present participle describes the defining mark of those characterized by faith; the aorist subjunctive expresses the logical result of that: ultimate eschatological vindication. If the participle's "time" equals the main verb's, we're left with the nonsensical idea that one "believes" at the moment in time one "is not put to shame," as if faith occurs only simultaneously with final vindication.

I have not "wriggled around" on this point; my position has been consistent from the OP, as I've pointed out to you more than once. Go back and read it. The argument is that 1 John 5:1 expresses a logical, not temporal relationship between regeneration and faith. You're not addressing the point by repeatedly recasting it as a chronological objection.

You're not stating what problem you see here. These mean essentially the same thing. If two things occur simultaneously, there's no sequence in time. When I said that regeneration and faith may occur simultaneously in our temporal experience (as I noted in the OP to begin with), it was in response to your repeated discussion of temporal sequences. The point I was making is that timing is irrelevant to the argument. I am not making a chronological claim. My point from the start has been about logical priority, not temporal sequence. Nothing I have said contradicts that, so your claim that I'm arguing both ways is a misunderstanding of my position.

You are not reading my posts.

In post #17, I originally challenged this "faith after salvation" caricature of my argument by asking you directly: "Where have I argued for 'believing after salvation'?" You did not answer.

Instead, you simply doubled down on the caricature in your next reply, suggesting that I am "rearranging" grammar "to say that trust in Christ does not come before salvation" (my emphasis).

In post #30, I pointed out that you did not address my question. I then explained the reason for asking it, and how your wording misunderstands/misrepresents my position. You did not answer or acknowledge.

Instead, in your next reply, you went right back to the language of temporal experience ("you are arguing for a reality that we do not experience"), continuing to ignore my repeated clarifications that the argument doesn't concern the question of temporal experience.

In post #36, I again pointed out your category confusion on this. No acknowledgement.

Instead, in your next reply, you shifted course entirely and took a personal experience approach, suggesting that you know my theology is off because your "alarm bells are going off." You chose not to engage at all with the content of my rebuttal to you.

Then, in verse #67, again, you repeat your caricature of my position: "there is no way to change the truth that God forgives sins and gives spiritual life to those who believe. It's not the other way around." (My emphasis). We're debating the logical priority of regeneration and faith, not the forgiveness of sins (justification).

And guess what? You've now done it again! "The fact is, you are arguing that faith in Christ comes after salvation." False. That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that faith in Christ is logically subsequent to regeneration, not justification, final salvation, or the whole package. If you can't be honest about what it is I'm even saying, we have nothing to discuss.

I mean, they do. What more do you want me to say? You refuse to engage the content of my arguments in any meaningful attempt to show exegetically where I've erred. Do you expect me to just let you win a debate?

Let's look at two passages with the same gramatical structure.

"Whoever believes (Present Active Participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (Perfect Passive Indicative) of God" (1 Jn 5:1), and
"the one who does not believe (Present Active Participle) God has made (Perfect Active Indicative) Him a liar" (1 Jn 5:10).

Your contention on the first is that being born again (logicaly?) preceeds believing based on the grammar.

So, to be consistent, you must also think that making Him a liar (logically?) preceeds not believing based on the same grammar. But you would be wrong because the rest of verse 10 explains that not believing God is what makes Him a liar (not believing (logically?) preceeds making Him a liar)...

the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed (Perfect Active Indicative) in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. (1 Jn 5:10)

Honestly, I do not think you know that justification, sanctification, regeneration, passing from death to life, possessing eternal life, being joined to the Lord, being one spirit with Him, not facing judgement, etc. all occur simultaneously and are comletely dependent on Jesus coming to live in our hearts. Logically, they all exist if Jesus is in us, and none exist if He is not. Same is true for chronological order. None of them existed when Jesus was not present, and all of them exist with Him present. So, please do not read my dismissal of your argument that we must differentiate between logical precedence and chronological precedence as dishonesty. It is simply a rejection of your premise.

And you are making points that require a great deal of effort to investigate and refute. And honestly, the effort required makes it impossible to address all your points.

Dikaioumenoi · 2025-11-05T11:53:54-0600

BNR32FAN said:
Like what for example? Be specific, what do you want me to address that I haven’t already addressed?

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).

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.

BNR32FAN said:
Are you suggesting that God regenerates people who aren’t saved? I don’t understand what your point is.

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.

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).

BNR32FAN said:
John 3:18

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.

BNR32FAN said:
You still have to explain how your interpretation of 1 John 5:1 doesn’t contradict John 12:36.

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.

BNR32FAN said:
Why is Jesus telling these people that they have to believe in order to become sons of the Light?

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.

BNR32FAN said:
Becoming a child of God is synonymous with being born again, it’s the exact same thing.

No, it's not. I've already asked you to defend this claim. What is your argument?

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.

BNR32FAN said:
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.

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.

BNR32FAN said:
John 12:36 specifically tells us exactly which event takes place and 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.

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-05T12:17:51-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
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).

I have addressed John 6:44. posted this in response to you asking me to explain John 6:44 and that’s exactly what I explained here.

BNR32FAN said:
No my point is that if we take the information given in all of these passages and put it all together we can make better deductions about how the verses were intended to be interpreted. The statement made in John 6:44 contradicts Jesus’ statement made in John 12:32. So the only way to determine what He actually meant is thru deductive reasoning. Ezekiel 33:11 gives us a very important piece of information about what God desires. Genesis 5:5-6 also affirms the same thing, that God does not want man to be disobedient and desires them to repent and believe which is precisely what 2 Peter 3:9 says. So interpreting 2 Peter 3:9 in isolation of the information given to us in Genesis 6:5-6 and Ezekiel 33:11 allows for an alternative interpretation, but when you incorporate the information given in all of these passages of scripture it rules out the possibility of God only being patient with those He intends to save. Even Romans 9:22 and Romans 2:4-5 rule out this interpretation.

“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭22‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

These two passages prove that God is patient with those who are destined for destruction and the purpose of His patience is in hope that they would repent which follows along with 2 Peter 3:9 perfectly. Ezekiel 33:11 echoes this exact same message.

“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭33‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

All of these passages together form a very strong, if not irrefutable concept, that God is in fact patient with ALL MEN not desiring for any to perish but that they would repent and be saved.

John 6:44 is completely different situation that took place during Christ’s ministry during the time when God had blinded those who didn’t believe the words of the prophets in order to bring about Christ’s crucifixion so that they would shout “crucify Him” in order to complete God’s plan of redemption. Calvinists often fail to notice this or refuse to accept it but it’s mentioned all throughout the New Testament and was prophesied in the Old Testament in Isaiah. In Mark 4:11-12 Jesus quotes from Isaiah when He said

“And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭4‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He’s quoting Isaiah 6

“He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate, The Lord has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.””
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He quotes Isaiah again in John 12

“This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭38‬-‭48‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In John 5

“And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭37‬-‭47‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Then in John 6:44-45

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭44‬-‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus didn’t just say that no one could come to Him unless The Father draws them, He included the prophecy that those who believed the words of the prophets would come to Him. This is why some were not permitted to come to Him during His ministry.

The whole purpose of this post is explaining John 6:44.

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-05T12:24:33-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
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.

None of those passages say anything about when they became children of God. John 12:36 does say when we become a children of God, it’s AFTER we believe. The verses you’re quoting don’t give a sequence or an indication of causality. John 12:36 does.

BNR32FAN · 2025-11-05T12:28:29-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
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.

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).

I’m deflecting? You’re the one who’s deflecting that’s why you don’t want to answer my question of whether or not those who are regenerated are saved or not. No regeneration and salvation are not synonymous, but they are simultaneous. Are they not?

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Active Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Similar threads