First, let me cite these good words of brother Ross and then add some additional thoughts of my own. (Emphasis are mine)
Bob wrote:
"I noticed earlier today, Charles (of the calvinistflyswatter blog), while surfing some of the Hybrid Calvinist websites, that 1 John 5:1 has evidently become the "sugar-stick" for the Hybrid Calvinist heresy that one is "born again before faith."
I saw this being advocated on the Internet by The Calvinist Gadfly, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Dever, Gene Bridges, and of course I had noticed it awhile back by James White.
The rather peculiar thing about the Hybrid argument is that they allege that the only "alternative" to their view is to believe that "faith precedes regeneration." They do not recognize the fact that according to another view of the Scriptures and Creedal Calvinism, faith is a constituent element of the new birth itself and they therefore are SIMULTANEOUS and CO-EXISTENT. One does not exist at any point in time without the other.
The obvious error of the Hybrid Calvinists on 1 John 5:1 is their contention that the new birth can be an accomplished fact before, without, and apart from the new birth's most essential constituent element, faith. If the primary work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth is the very creation of faith by the Word of God, how can one be described as "born again" before there is faith?
1 John 5:1, in fact, cites faith as the great evidence that one is born of God -- not that one is born of God before, without, and apart from faith. Here are some excerpts from my article on this passage which I wrote awhile back:
DOES FIRST JOHN 5:1 TEACH AN "ORDER"
TO THE NEW BIRTH, OR REGENERATION? [04/14/04]
It is argued by James White in his writings that I John 5:1 teaches that there is "pre-faith" New Birth, or Regeneration, to the effect that the new birth precedes believing. On the other side, which he opposes, he alleges there is the view that faith precedes the new birth.
Both these views, we believe, are in conflict with our orthodox Confessions of Faith and of course with what we understand is taught in Scripture.
The idea which James White tries to prove is that in the New Birth there is an order whereby one who HAS NOT YET BELIEVED "has been born of God," and then after supposedly being born of God he is thereby given "ability" to perform the act of faith in Christ.
James claims that "spiritual birth precedes . . . faith" (The Potter's Freedom, pages 286, 288, 84).
What kind of "new birth" is it that in its very constituency lacks love for Christ and faith in Christ?
First John 5:1 reads:
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
The most evident truth of this verse is that faith and the New Birth are COEXISTENT, where there is one there is the other. They are somewhat like life itself: were there is life, there is breath; and where there is breath, there is life.
Since the person who believes in Christ is born of God, or has been born of God, then conversely the person who does not believe is not and has not been born of God.
The believer is born of God.
The unbeliever is not born of God.
There is no "middle ground," no "in-between" state, no "half-dead, half-alive" condition, so far as this passage is concerned. Believing is simply presented here as the "living proof" or evidence that one is, or has been, born of God. Conversely, no faith in Christ equals no new birth.
The verse does not deal at all with an alleged "sequence" or "order" of actions, as is advocated by James White and some others. That is not even the obvious intention of the writer, John, for he is not trying to convince his readers about what Hybrid Calvinists call the "ordo salutis." John, of all the New Testament writers, emphasizes the important necessity of faith in regard to salvation (John 20:31), that one who believes has life and the one who does not believe does not have life.
James White tries to justify his faulty "exegesis" by comparing 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 where John says that "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." James argues that doing righteousness is "after" one has been born again.
But what James fails to note the fact that the very FIRST act of righteousness that a person does is to believe in Christ. "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:22). Believing is "obeying the Gospel" (Romans 10:16, 17; 1:16). The unsaved sinner is commanded to believe as a necessary act in being saved.
Jesus explained to Nicodemus that "eternal life" is by believing (John 3:14-18). This is same message Paul gave to the jailer in Acts 16:31. This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent (John 6:29). John wrote his Gospel for the purpose of bringing men to believe (John 20:31).
The very first commandment is summed up as love for God, and faith incorporates that love, for "faith worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6). Love is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), and love has as its object the Lord Jesus, and the one who loves is born of God (1 John 4:7).
How could one be "born again" before he has love for and faith in Christ created in him by the power of the Word of God and Holy Spirit?
We are nowhere taught in Scripture that such a birth devoid of love and faith precedes faith. As Spurgeon put it, "Life COMES WITH believing" (MTP, Volume 27, year 1881, page 662).
It is the work of the Holy Spirit, thru the means of the Gospel or Word of God (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:23), to create faith in the sinner, and this constitutes the new birth."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23354593&postID=115173577614521347
The answer to the seeming incongruity of John putting faith in a present tense participle while putting "is born" in a perfect (past) tense indicative, is the same I gave in the preceding chapter about John 1: 12, 13. John again could have written the verse as follows:
"Whoever has believed (past tense) has been (past tense) born." But, John's habit is to describe "believing" as an ongoing action, rather than a one time completed action in the past, as he does with being "born," which he always puts in the past tense, as a one time completed action. Thus, all John is saying is that the one who is believing, who is living the life of faith, is one who has previously been born of God, who has previously "received" him, one who has previously and initially believed to salvation.
John is thus saying - "whoever is living the life of faith is one who has been born of God," and he is not denying that it is equally true to say - "he who has believed and received Christ has been born of God."
The same is true with the words - "whoever is practicing righteousness has been begotten." John could have said - "whoever has acted righteously in believing on and in receiving Christ has been born of God." But, he does not want to view acting righteously, or doing righteousness, as a one time event as he does with the birth. One who is living the life of faith and the life of righteousness, is one who has been born of God. John is not divorcing, as brother Ross has shown, faith and being active, in being born of God. The only reason why "believing" and "practicing righteousness" is not in the past tense, like the begetting, is because John wants to focus on the life of the believer, not on the initial act of faith.
So, this is all poor exegesis. It creates the unbiblical character of a "regenerated unbeliever."
Probably a better verse to use, rather than John 1: 12, 13 and I John 2: 29, to prove that sometimes "begetting" is prior to faith, is this one.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3 KJV)
Here Peter says that "hope" is the product of the divine begetting. Here "hope" is connected with "faith." But, this really agrees with John who says that "faith" is the product of the divine begetting. (I John 5: 4)
John and Peter are teaching that when the sinner is begotten, faith, hope, and love for Christ are begotten, they being "things that accompany salvation." (Hebrews 6: 9) Thus, when a person is begotten, not only is "life" begotten, but also an obedient and ardent faith, and love, and hope, etc.
Besides, the putting of birth before faith, eliminates the gospel as a means. Those, like James White, will try to deny that they have a regeneration apart from the means of the gospel, but they are inconsistent and contradictory. The reason for this is simple. If we are "begotten" through the gospel, that can only mean begotten through faith, or through believing the gospel.
James White on I John 5: 1
"Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”). In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident the the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God. The verb “to be born” is passive: they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? belief that Jesus is the Christ. Just as all those who are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son (John 6:37), so too all who are spiritually reborn through the work of God have as the object of their faith the Lord Jesus Christ.
Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation. A means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered of this passage would be to ask how such a person interprets these words from John:
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29)
Every consistent protestant would say, “the reason one practices righteousness is because they have already been born of Him. We do not practice righteousness so as to be born, but instead the birth give rise to the practice of righteousness”. And such is quite true. But, this means that in 1 John 5:1 the belief in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. The verbal parallel is exact: in 1 John 2:29 “the one practicing righteousness” is a present participle; in 1 John 5:1 “the one believing” is a present participle. In both passages the exact same verb in the exact same form is used. Therefore, sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works."
http://strangebaptistfire.com/2007/03/09/does-1-john-51-prove-faith-leads-to-regeneration/
Now let me review more precisely the remarks of White and judge his "exegesis."
White said:
"Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”)."
Who denies that the one who is a practicing and ongoing believer is one who has been previously born of God? James is not fighting a real opponent, but an imaginary one, a "straw man."
White ought to find a verse that says - "he who believed was previously born of God," for I John 5: 1 does not say it. White argues that the divine begetting precedes the initial act of faith and that John is affirming this. But, the initial act of faith is not even mentioned!
White is comparing apples to oranges. The cases are not alike. John says that the Christian life is preceded by a birth. Who denies that? John does not put the initial converting act of believing and turning to Christ, however, after the begetting! He only puts the ongoing faith as what surely follows a real spiritual birth.
When White argues against what he calls the "Arminian" "ordo salutis" he sets up a different structure. He does not use a present tense participle! John uses one! The "is believing" of John does not equal "believe" in the example given of White. What Arminian, except he be a Pelagian, denies that the begetting precedes and causes the "is believing," or the life of faith, the Christian life? Again, what White should have done was to show how John, or some other bible writer, wrote in this form - "whoever believes (one time act) has been (previously) born of God." He did not find that structure in I John 5: 1 or 4: 7!
White said:
"In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident the the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God."
"If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God."
But, again, no one denies this! Not even an "Arminian." Certainly the Christian life of faith (the "is believing") follows spiritual birth! But, show where the initial act of believing in and receiving Christ is put after the birth! That is what you cannot do!
White said:
"The verb “to be born” is passive: they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? belief that Jesus is the Christ."
No! John is not saying that! He is saying that the life of faith follows a new birth! Again, White admits that John is not focusing on "believing" as a one time act in the past, to the initial conversion experience, but to the one who is continually believing.
Poor exegesis James!
In the next chapter I will look at some other verses in the gospel of John that are cited by Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists to try to uphold their "born again before faith" error.
No comments:
Post a Comment