Monday, March 01, 2010
Is 1 John 5:10 Parallel and Relevant to 1 John 5:1?
The following video comes from Dr. James White addressing the question of whether 1 John 5:10 is parallel to and relevant to 1 John 5:1, particularly with respect to the issue of regeneration and faith.Also of interest, Dr. White has a presentation specifically on 1 John 5:1, which provides the main argument regarding 1 John 5:1:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Here is a standard rebuttal to Mr. White by a prominent Arminian named Robert. Could Mr. White or perhaps you address this rebuttal?
That is EXACTLY why I reject James White’s attempt to proof text from 1 Jn. 5:1 to “prove” that regeneration precedes faith. In my first year Greek class we learned about 1 John, went through it verse by verse. And it is not talking about initial saving faith but about what true disciples of Jesus continuously and currently do. It is a great book for discipleship and assurance of salvation because if you are born again then the things he talks about will be true of you. It is PRECISELY because calvinists like James White and Thomas Schreiner seeking to proof text from 1 Jn. 5:1 that they did not: “look at the context and letter as a whole first and the authors usage before you go running off to another book or letter written by a different author”. Instead since they are proof texting they ignored the context, ignored things that I was learning as a first year Greek student. Making mistakes that no one who claims to be a Greek scholar should be making. Again, it is very, very simple, 1 John 5:1 as well as the rest of the letter of 1 John, is not discussing INITIAL FAITH (or how we became believers) but DISCIPLESHIP FAITH. If you want to see how we become believers go to Romans for that. If you want to learn about discipleship and what living the Christian life looks like once you have been born again/saved, then look at 1 John.
Robert
Dr. White happens to be someone who has taught Greek at the seminary level. But yes, I've heard of a number of folks who have taken one semester of something that think they've arrived.
The entire argument that "Robert" is making is the same argument presented by "Dan" on the Dividing Line program yesterday (around 50 minutes into the program, if I recall correctly).
The argument is that the verse is not talking about initial faith, but about a second category of faith.
As Dr. White pointed out, the flaw in that argument is that the text doesn't make the distinction that the argument presupposes. In other words, the text doesn't distinguish between categories of "initial faith" and "discipleship faith" (as Robert puts it).
-TurretinFan
What about the argument
The fact that a person presently believes is an indication of having been born again is not contested. The force of the argument that having been born again is the cause of the belief is what we detect in your error. Your error is causal in nature. Nowhere does John state these occurrences as causal, i.e. BECAUSE.
John's point, something we call authorial intent based upon context, was not that we practice righteousness BECAUSE we have been born again, or that we love God and others BECAUSE we have been born again, or that we believe BECAUSE we have been born again, but that these are present indicators that one has been born again - and the difference in our two interpretations is paramount. I realize that your are blinded to this truth due to your presupposition. I understand that, and remain frustrated. God bless.
I will listen to Dividing Line program.
"The fact that a person presently believes is an indication of having been born again is not contested. The force of the argument that having been born again is the cause of the belief is what we detect in your error. Your error is causal in nature. Nowhere does John state these occurrences as causal, i.e. BECAUSE."
Causality is not expressly stated but is implied. See the parallel example where it is expressly stated:
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
"John's point, something we call authorial intent based upon context, was not that we practice righteousness BECAUSE we have been born again, ..."
Actually, in 1 John 3:19 John's explicit that it is because we have been born again.
" ... or that we love God and others BECAUSE we have been born again, ... "
The causal link is less express, but if you read down, the causal link is explained:
1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
" ... or that we believe BECAUSE we have been born again, but that these are present indicators that one has been born again - and the difference in our two interpretations is paramount."
See above - the first link of the argument is clearly broken - the second link is also broken (if less clearly) and the third link follows the first two.
The fact that something does serve as an indicator does not in any way deny the causal relationship. Indeed, that's the nature of symptoms - they indicate the cause of the symptom.
The remainder wasn't really an argument.
-TurretinFan
As Dr. White pointed out, the flaw in that argument is that the text doesn't make the distinction that the argument presupposes. In other words, the text doesn't distinguish between categories of "initial faith" and "discipleship faith" (as Robert puts it).
It's likely that everyone who regularly reads your blog has seen James White's videos on 1 John 5:1.
My main argument was that the timing of the perfect tense ‘have been born’ is relative to John’s writing of the epistle, rather than relative to ‘believing’. So grammatically, John is not saying regeneration precedes faith. James White, instead of arguing grammar, argued context (i.e. John doesn’t explicitly say regeneration precedes faith, but he implies it). The context argument (even if successful) does not resurrect the dead grammar argument; John simply does not say regeneration precedes faith. So the whole business of perseverance in faith was cutting off a retreat; the battle was over.
The text does talk about 'continual faith' rather than a one time act of faith. As I pointed out to James White, 'believing' is a present participle; which indicates ongoing action. The present participle is not simply a quality of the faith (i.e. a faith that lasts), rather it indicates duration of faith.
This point can be clarified by reviewing the other assurance texts in 1 John. Not sinning (3:9; 5:18), doing righteousness (2:29), and loving the brethren (4:7) are stated as tests for assurance. But who would say that a single sin indicates that a person is unsaved, or a single act of obedience or love is basis for assurance? No, John is taking about the habit of sinning and a lifestyle of doing righteousness and loving the brethren. So John's use of the present participle in the contexts of tests for assurance really does stress the need to examine the ongoing patterns in our lives, not just one time actions.
God be with you,
Dan
subscribing
"My main argument was that the timing of the perfect tense ‘have been born’ is relative to John’s writing of the epistle, rather than relative to ‘believing’."
Dr. White's response was that you were mistaken about that claim.
"So grammatically, John is not saying regeneration precedes faith."
See above.
"James White, instead of arguing grammar, argued context (i.e. John doesn’t explicitly say regeneration precedes faith, but he implies it)."
He explained that, grammatically, the tenses have to be contextually understood. In the context, we see (among other things) that John is speaking in general. He's not speaking about a particular person who existed at the time of the writing of his epistle.
"The context argument (even if successful) does not resurrect the dead grammar argument; John simply does not say regeneration precedes faith."
It seems to me that you didn't understand Dr. White's response to your attempted grammatical argument. That argument is flawed, because the way you attempted to apply Greek grammatical rules to the verse is not correct. His argument about context was an explanation about why your grammatical argument was flawed.
"So the whole business of perseverance in faith was cutting off a retreat; the battle was over."
The whole business about perseverance in faith was the only other option you had. When his point about how Greek is understood in context cut off your grammatical argument, your only other option was the perseverance argument, but he cut that off as well.
"The text does talk about 'continual faith' rather than a one time act of faith."
No, it doesn't make that distinction, and your quotation is fake. You won't find "continual faith" in the text.
"As I pointed out to James White, 'believing' is a present participle; which indicates ongoing action."
Grammatically, it refers to something that is ongoing in the sense of "happening at the present time" or "occurring now." Grammatically, it doesn't refer to something that will continue to occur, nor to something that was previously occurring. Grammatically, it refers only to one point in time, the present.
"The present participle is not simply a quality of the faith (i.e. a faith that lasts), rather it indicates duration of faith."
No, it doesn't indicate the duration of the faith. It simply indicates the presence of the faith.
[cont'd in part 2]
[cont'd from part 1]
"This point can be clarified by reviewing the other assurance texts in 1 John. Not sinning (3:9; 5:18), doing righteousness (2:29), and loving the brethren (4:7) are stated as tests for assurance."
Let's grant this for the sake of the argument.
"But who would say that a single sin indicates that a person is unsaved, or a single act of obedience or love is basis for assurance?"
I suspect no one would. In fact, I think most people would look for a general trajectory of sin or obedience/love. But is that what you (Dan) are proposing here? If so, is it only a general trajectory of faith that is in view? That would be an unusual position for an Arminian. Indeed, it doesn't seem like a viable position.
There's a different way to look at the passages. The different way is to see each sin as evidence of human nature that needs to be put to death, but to see conquering sin, obedience, and love as evidence of God's grace, and consequently of the second birth (which is the beginning of saving grace). That doesn't mean that we would necessarily obtain assurance from a single event, but we would see each good thing we do as sign of the Spirit's work in our life.
"No, John is taking about the habit of sinning and a lifestyle of doing righteousness and loving the brethren."
I've addressed this above. If the parallel is going to be merely a "habit of faith" or a "lifestyle of faith" ... but I don't think Arminians do that, and the alternative explanation is better.
"So John's use of the present participle in the contexts of tests for assurance really does stress the need to examine the ongoing patterns in our lives, not just one time actions."
Nevertheless, Arminian assurance is based on present faith - not a trajectory of faith - and the presence of a trajectory of faith is not supposed to be assuring to an Arminian if one is presently not believing.
At any rate, as noted above, the alternative explanation is better - primarily because it addresses what the text actually says.
Furthermore, we might add that the new birth is not something would itself give an Arminian assurance, which further undermines Dan's overall view of the text. In other words, even if we think that there is a link as follows:
faith => assurance
within an Arminian perspective, it would not make sense for a middle link in that chain to be regeneration (new birth):
faith => regeneration => assurance
Instead, that kind of link would tend to work only in a soteriology in which new birth itself were tied to salvation in an inseparable way.
- TurretinFan
Post a Comment