Does 1 John 5:1 teach that we believe because we are born again?

I listened with interest to an episode by my friend, Dan Chapa, on "1 John 5:1 and Whether Regeneration Precedes Faith."  I don't intend this to be full, detailed, line-by-line response to his 90 minute episode (which was a response to James White's challenge).  I would like to address what I see as the strongest points he raised.  The majority of these are from the first half of his presentation, before he begins to interact with an article from an interlocutor.

First, Chapa noted that the book of 1 John does not have, as its primary goal, a focused explanation of the order of salvation.  Instead, Chapa argued that the book is about assurance of eternal life ("tests for assurance" were his exact words).  I accept this point, but note that nevertheless the book reveals something about the order of salvation as it goes about establishing assurance.  Chapa does not seem have anticipated this push-back, or at least I did not hear it if he did so.

Second, Chapa interpreted "ὁ πιστεύων" (ho pisteuon) here as referring to those who are characterized by a pattern of believing.  I think it's worth noting that the same inflected form pisteuon is found in each of the following places:

John 3:15-16, 18, 36 (KJV)15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ... 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ... 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24 (KJV) 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:35, 40, 47 (KJV)35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. ... 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 7:38 (KJV) 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

John 11:25-26 (KJV) 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

John 12:44, 46 (KJV) 44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. ... 46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

John 14:12 (KJV) 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Acts 13:39 (KJV)39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 24:14 (KJV) 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Romans 9:33 (KJV) 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:11 (KJV) 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Peter 2:6 (KJV) 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1 John 5:1, 5, 10 (KJV) 1 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. ... 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? ... 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

It is interesting to note that the uses in Paul's and Peter's epistles are a quotation from Isaiah 28:16 (following more closely the Septuagint text of that verse "ashamed" than the Masoretic text "make haste"). I think there is a ready way to harmonize those two readings, but it is simply left here as a minor observation.

However, to Chapa's point, I think it's not perfectly clear that it is a lifestyle or habit of belief that is in mind, at least not as distinct from a single action of believing.  While many of the references could be understood in context under either interpretation, the hardest one to reconcile is something like this one:

John 5:24 (KJV) 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

The reason it is hard to reconcile here is that it is hard to see the passage from death to life as anything but a point event.  And if it is a point event, the emphasis of "he that ... believes" cannot be on believing as a habit or lifestyle.  

Unsurprisingly, the same holds true here.  It's hard to see "born of God" as something other than a one-time event.  

Chapa argues that a present participle indicates an ongoing action as distinct from a single event.  This is not a grammatical rule.

For some non-controversial counter-examples, consider "πᾶς ὁ βλέπων" (all the looking - whosoever looketh) in Matthew 5:28 or "πᾶς ὁ ἀποκτείνας" (all the killing - whosever killeth) in John 16:2.

Chapa makes an argument from the ESV's translation, which inserts "practice of ..." in 1 John 3:4 (among other places).  However, it is far from clear that this is the correct translation of 1 John 3:4.  More significantly, though, the ESV does not provide a similar insertion at 1 John 5:1.

Chapa seems to argue that the new birth causes ongoing faith but not initial faith.  He seems to recognize that there is a need to justify why ongoing faith would have a different cause than initial faith.

Chapa argues that assurance takes time.  The Scriptures don't require time for assurance.  Chapa cites the Confession regarding assurance, noting that assurance is not of the essence of faith, but Chapa seems to misunderstand this as saying that immediate assurance is not possible, which is not what the Confession is saying.

Third, Chapa argues that it is an "evidence/inference" relationship rather than "cause/effect" relationship (from my standpoint, this is a false dilemma).  To make this point, Chapa argues against what he understands to be the premise of the challenge.  The challenge argued that 1 John 5:1 is the third in a pattern of verses, namely:

• 1 John 2:29 (KJV) If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
• 1 John 4:7 (KJV) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
• 1 John 5:1 (KJV) 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.
  

Chapa seems to offer a few arguments on this point:

First, he argues that it's not the grammar but the context that's significant to the previous two examples.  And that the context in those examples doesn't make the grammatical construction automatically carry the same interpretation elsewhere.  The rebuttal on this point is that the contexts are linked through the shared phrase, "born of God" as well as the close proximity within the same short letter.

Chapa acknowledges, as relevant context to the first two:

1 John 3:9 (KJV) 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.

Second, he seems to argue that although the challenge assumes that being born of God is "causal" in 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7, it is not. He says that there may be a "causal influence" but that this does not make it a true cause.  After all, even in the case of 1 John 3:9, we may not always have enough good works to have assurance (so asserts Chapa around 26 minutes into the video, paraphrased by me).

This is flawed reasoning.  "Where there's smoke, there's fire" is an evidence/inference statement premised on a causal reality.  The fact that small or well-oxygenated fires sometimes do not produce noticeable smoke, or the fact that sometimes smoke is not visible due to wind or other atmospheric conditions, or the fact that smoke from an indoor fire can remain unseen for a long time --- none of these facts negate the causal relationship between smoke and fire.

Next, Chapa argues that the grammatical structure isn't "inherently causal," and points to John 3:18:

John 3:18 (KJV) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Chapa argues that obviously being condemned is not what causes the not-believing, but vice versa, even though the grammatical structure is (according to Chapa) the same.  The rebuttal here is that we agree that it is not a grammatical rule that a present participle with a perfect indicative always and invariably implies a specific causal relationship.  If there were such a principle, however, one grammatical difference of interest might be the negation involved.

Chapa argues that there is no "similar context" for 1 John 5:1 to establish that a causal relationship is present.  Chapa here narrowly limits the scope of context to a more direct statement about the relationship between being born of God and believing.  It's unclear why this demand should be accepted.   Why aren't the other contextual clues sufficient?

The main criticism I have of Chapa's presentation is that it relied too heavily on trying to critique what he perceived to be "the Calvinist" position, rather than establishing a positive position.  In his defense, perhaps the reason for this limited positive position is that he views the text as merely saying that faith is evidence of the new birth, and nothing more.

To avoid falling into the same criticism, I should offer my positive presentation.

The metaphor "born of God" is something the Holy Spirit, speaking by John, introduces in John 1:12-13.  

John 1:12-13 (KJV) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Gospel of John revisits the metaphor in John 3, with some additional explanation:

John 3:3-8 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

At least once more, John's Gospel brings up the same point, in John 8:

John 8:39-47 (KJV) They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

John's Epistle picks up the same theme in the following verses that explicitly reference being born of God:

1 John 2:29 (KJV) If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

1 John 3:9 (KJV) 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.

1 John 4:7 (KJV) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

1 John 5:1, 4, 18 (KJV) 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. ... For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith. ... We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

There are also references to the same idea, without explicit use of the word, "born":

1 John 3:10 (KJV) In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

1 John 5:2 (KJV) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

John is not alone in referring to being born again.  Peter makes the same point:

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

We should also add the "begotten" references, which include:

1 Peter 1:3 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,

1 John 5:1, 18 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. ... We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Paul, interestingly, does not use this specific metaphor.  Paul does refer to Christians as "children of God" but not necessarily with reference to being born of God.  After all, Paul uses the metaphor of adoption (e.g., Romans 8:15, 9:4, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5).  Likewise, Paul speaks of himself begetting people through the gospel (e.g., 1 Corinthians 4:15 and Philemon 10) but does not refer to God begetting anyone other than Jesus.  

While I'm not ready to be dogmatic about it, I believe that "calling" in Paul's theological vocabulary corresponds to "born of God" in John's theological vocabulary. I guess it's worth noting here that if I were persuaded that "born of God" in John's theological vocabulary corresponds precisely to "adoption" in Paul's, I would still hold to effectual calling, based on what Paul writes.  

Returning to John's letter, however, the question is what we should understand from his reference to "born of God" in 1 John 5:1.  As an initial point, we should understand it as identical in meaning with "begotten of him."  We should understand it as John has consistently used the expression in John 1, 3, and 8, and in 1 John 2, 3, and 4, as well as later in 1 John 5.

Even in John 1:12-13 the relative timing is suggestive of the being born coming before believing.  Furthermore, the very choice of the metaphor is telling: we have no choice or influence over our birth, according to the conventional knowledge of the first century.  Moreover, to rule out any such aspect to our being born again, even the will of man is ruled out.

In John 3, being born of God is a prerequisite both to seeing the kingdom of God and entering into the kingdom of God.  Moreover, the effect of the Spirit in causing a person to be born again is likened to the wind.  Specifically, it is like the wind whose sources are invisible, but whose effects are visible.

In John 8, Jesus connects being born of God with loving Jesus, hearing his words, and believing him.

In 1 John 2, John connects being born of God with doing righteousness.

In 1 John 3, John connects being born of God with avoiding sin, doing righteousness, and loving the brethren. 

In 1 John 4, John connects being born of God with loving.

In 1 John 5, John connects being born of God with believing, overcoming, and not sinning.  

So far, most of this should not be particularly controversial.  The question may be what is the nature of the connection between being of God and the various connected things.  

In at least some of the cases, the connection is undeniably causal.  For example, John plainly says, "he cannot sin, because he is born of God."  Likewise, being born of God can only be understood as a prerequisite to be seeing and entering into the kingdom of God. 

Furthermore, given that the explanation of the relationship between not sinning and being born again is undeniably causal, and given that "not sinning" is used almost interchangeably with "loving," we reasonably conclude that links to loving, like those to not sinning, are causal.

It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that when John uses the same grammatical constructive in the same kind of argument using the same "born of God" metaphor, that John means to indicate the same cause and effect relationship.  It's simply the natural reading of the text.  Moreover, this reading of the text fits perfectly with John's use in the Gospel of John, and also with the remainder of his uses in 1 John.

*** Update

An additional observation is this: John 5:1a is a parenthetical of a larger argument, as shown here:

John 4:16-5:3 (KJV) And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. 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. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

As you can see, the statement "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" is a parenthetical statement in a longer argument about the importance of love of the brethren in view of our relation to God.  John argues that God is love, and that our love is because of God's love for us.  John argues that if we claim we love God, but we don't love the brethren, we are lying about loving God.  He supports that argument by pointing out that God has commanded us to love the brethren, that all believers are born of God, and that if you love the one who begat (i.e., God) you will also love the one who is begotten (i.e., the believers).

While it is true that we can glean some assurance that we are born of God from the fact that we believe, that is not John's primary point in the text.  The primary point is that we should love the brethren who, like us, were born of God.