1 John 5:1 What does it really say?

[Dave]

1 John 5:1 NKJV Bible

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him."

1 John 5:1 - Compare Bible Verse Translations

Compare Bible translations of 1 John 5:1 using all available Bible versions and commentary. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well"

www.biblestudytools.com

This is one one a few passages that I believe are not interpreted accurately by the consensus. I found and interesting read on this topic that basically says the same things that I'm going to give the link. It elaborates a lot more. I'm going to read the rest of it tonight. I'll keep my argument smaller, but may quote people in this link to save time, and to save your brains from needing to untangle my dyslexia. Here' the link I'm quoting from, which quoted DR. Sam Storms.

1 John 5:1 Does Not Teach Pre-Faith Regeneration

In an earlier post <here> we presented many passages which clearly indicate the ordo salutis (the order of salvation), as expressed by the apostle John when he wrote, “I have written th…

soteriology101.com

Anyways, this passage is often quoted as proof that one must be born again to believe. I think this mistranslation was pointed out very eloquently by Dr. Sam Storms. I believe that he is one of the consensus who believe that the new birth precedes faith. I thank him for his honesty.


Dr. Storms wrote:

"John says in 5:1 that whoever is presently believing in Christ has in the past been born or begotten of God. I.e., a present action of believing is evidence of a past experience of begetting. Is John then saying that new birth or regeneration always precedes and causes saving faith in Christ? Although I believe regeneration (new birth) does precede and cause faith, I do not believe that is John’s point here.

When one examines these texts where the terminology of regeneration is used, one finds that John is concerned with describing the consequences or fruit of the new birth:

Question: “How may I know that regeneration has occurred? How may I know if someone has been born again?”

Answer: “That person will not practice sin (3:9; 5:18). That person will practice righteousness (2:29). That person will love the brethren (4:7). That person will believe in Christ (5:1). And that person will overcome the world (5:4).”

John’s point is simply that these activities are the evidence of the new birth and hence of salvation. Their absence is the evidence that regeneration has not taken place. He makes this point, not because he wants to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith, but because he wants to provide the church with tests by which to discern between true and spurious “believers.”" –Dr. Sam Storms (link is not working, sorry)



The same John in his Gospels wrote this as the purpose of his Gospel. John 20:31

"but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

And later, John wrote this as the purpose of his Epistle, 1 John 5:13

" These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."


This verse, if we do not go beyond the text, is really not in conflict with those who believe that being born again is the result of faith. I'm going to do a thread on John 1:12-13 also. And then John 3:3 maybe. It IS going beyond the text to use it as a proof text to, as Dr. Sam Storms wrote, "demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith"

 

[John Bauer]

I invite you to a private debate—me and you as the only participants—in the Exegesis forum. It is dedicated to facilitating debate between just two members who want to "engage in focused, methodical exegesis of a designated passage, adhering to standards of academic rigor and transparent citation." Let's dig into this text in a forum that has some guardrails.

 

[John Bauer]

This is one one a few passages that I believe are not interpreted accurately by the consensus.

Upon what basis does that belief stand?

 

[Carbon]

I invite you to a private debate—me and you as the only participants—

Thats a great idea. Our first private debate.

 

[Josheb]

???????

Are you aware the op refutes your position faith precedes regeneration and the faith of the sinfully dead and enslaved flesh is salvifically meritorious?

1 John 5:1 NKJV Bible

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him."




Anyways, this passage is often quoted as proof that one must be born again to believe. I think this mistranslation was pointed out very eloquently by Dr. Sam Storms. I believe that he is one of the consensus who believe that the new birth precedes faith. I thank him for his honesty.


Dr. Storms wrote:

"John says in 5:1 that whoever is presently believing in Christ has in the past been born or begotten of God. I.e., a present action of believing is evidence of a past experience of begetting. Is John then saying that new birth or regeneration always precedes and causes saving faith in Christ? Although I believe regeneration (new birth) does precede and cause faith, I do not believe that is John’s point here.

The people to whom John was writing presently believed in Jesus at the time of John writing them. They had previously been born anew from above BY God the believing was the evidence of that new birth (not its cause).

Mr. Storm's opinion does not change the facts of the text. He believes regeneration preceding faith is not John's point, but that is stated by Dr. Storms as his opinion, not the necessary conclusion of proper exegesis.


Just as they have in all the other ops you've posted, the facts remain: 1) no one gets saved outside a monergistically initiated and maintained Christological covenant, 2) John was writing about the saved and regenerate believers, 3) it is completely inappropriate to take verses written about the saved, regenerate believer and apply them to unsaved, unregenerate non-believers, 4) the cause of salvation is God, not the faculties of the sinful, unregenerate flesh, and 5) your exegesis is lacking.

You do understand Flowers is misrepresenting Storms, yes? Flowers has quote mined Dr. Storms to insinuate Storms agrees with Flowers' Provisionism when that is definitely NOT the case. Flowers would like his readers to think Provisionism is justified because Storms does not think John's "point" is regeneration precedes faith.


The simple fact of scripture is 6) Scripture reports no episode of any non-believer coming to Christ for salvation in which the cause of that coming is explicitly attributed to the faculties of the sinful flesh. When scripture assigns causality, it always does so citing God as the cause, not the faculties of sinful, unregenerate flesh of the non-believer. Even were we to read 1 John 5:1 the way you do, the simply, blunt fact remains: There is no example of that version of the verse ever happening in the entirety of scripture. It is an interpretation completely lacking an explicit precedent!

Every single article at Soteriology 101 has been written ignoring the overarching context of the Christological covenant relationship. That covenant is always and everywhere monergistic.

 

[Josheb]

Upon what basis does that belief stand?

GREAT QUESTION!

 

[John Bauer]

Mr. Storm's opinion does not change the facts of the text. He believes regeneration preceding faith is not John's point, but that is stated by Dr. Storms as his opinion, not the necessary conclusion of proper exegesis.

With respect to the doctrinal position that regeneration precedes faith, Storms believes (correctly) that 1 John 5:1 (a) doesn't didactically teach it, but (b) does implicitly teach it.

According to Storms, this text does assert "that whoever is presently believing in Christ has in the past been born or begotten of God" (emphasis mine), so he quotes the passage consistent with its grammar and logic. But as to the question of whether or not the "new birth or regeneration always precedes and causes saving faith in Christ, [that is not] John's point here." In other words, that truth is operational in the point that actually is being made. "John is concerned with describing the consequences or fruit of the new birth," Storms said. How may we know that regeneration has occurred in a person? Among other things, that person will believe in Christ. Dave appears to miss the logic of the point Storms is making, that regeneration must precede faith in order to say that faith is the result of regeneration.

"John's point," Storms said, "is simply that these activities are the evidence of the new birth and, hence, of salvation. Their absence is the evidence that regeneration has not taken place. He makes this point, not because he wants to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith, but because he wants to provide the church with tests by which to discern between true and spurious believers" (emphasis mine).

 

[Josheb]

With respect to the doctrinal position that regeneration precedes faith, Storms believes (correctly) that 1 John 5:1 (a) doesn't didactically teach it, but (b) does implicitly teach it.

Which means Flowers is misappropriating Storms (and @Dave is either unaware of that misuse or furthering it).

 

[Dave]

With respect to the doctrinal position that regeneration precedes faith, Storms believes (correctly) that 1 John 5:1 (a) doesn't didactically teach it, but (b) does implicitly teach it.

According to Storms, this text does assert "that whoever is presently believing in Christ has in the past been born or begotten of God" (emphasis mine), so he quotes the passage consistent with its grammar and logic. But as to the question of whether or not the "new birth or regeneration always precedes and causes saving faith in Christ, [that is not] John's point here." In other words, that truth is operational in the point that actually is being made. "John is concerned with describing the consequences or fruit of the new birth," Storms said. How may we know that regeneration has occurred in a person? Among other things, that person will believe in Christ. Dave appears to miss the logic of the point Storms is making, that regeneration must precede faith in order to say that faith is the result of regeneration.

"John's point," Storms said, "is simply that these activities are the evidence of the new birth and, hence, of salvation. Their absence is the evidence that regeneration has not taken place. He makes this point, not because he wants to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith, but because he wants to provide the church with tests by which to discern between true and spurious believers" (emphasis mine).

Dave said

"This verse, if we do not go beyond the text, is really not in conflict with those who believe that being born again is the result of faith.... It IS going beyond the text to use it as a proof text to, as Dr. Sam Storms wrote, "demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith".

And that is exactly my point. It doesn't say that the faith stated originated as a result of being born again. That faith was only an evidence that being born again had already happened. You get the difference, right?

 

[Dave]

Upon what basis does that belief stand?

The basis is to not go beyond the text. The proof is in the text itself. This is really a classic illustration of what Calvinists do, as I'm being made more aware of as we continue in these discussions. Remember, this is one of the key verses used by Calvinists to rewrite very clear Scripture. You've used it yourself, John, just recently.

 

[Josheb]

The basis is to not go beyond the text.

That is correct. Sorta. The text always has context, and the contexts are almost always stated.

The proof is in the text itself.

But both you and Storms and Flowers all added to the text (and every single one of the soteriology ops you've posted in the last month do the same). The text is NOT allowed to speak for itself without eisegetic additions.

This is really a classic illustration of what Calvinists do...

I have not. You have not proved I have. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly demonstrated you chronically making texts say things they do nt state.

, as I'm being made more aware of as we continue in these discussions. Remember, this is one of the key verses used by Calvinists to rewrite very clear Scripture. You've used it yourself, John, just recently.

Nice try. Calvinists do not re-write scripture.

The fact is Storms offered a personal opinion, and Flowers attempted to exploit that opinion and you're siding with Flowers, whose soteriology is far outside both historical Christian orthodoxy and mainstream Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. Flowers is not someone upon which to base anything. He, like you, misunderstood monergism and, having misunderstood it, reacted to his own strawman and he then quite literally invented his own doctrine. If we don't count Pelagius, Flowers' views are less than 20 years old and so radically opposed to everything taught in Christian history that either the entirety of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice is wrong (which would mean no Christians have existed for the last two millennia) of the entire 2000 years of Church existence is correct and Flowers is wrong.

One of the unstated and most fundamental points of the op is that volitionalism has gone so far afield of whatever common ground existed for the entirety of Church history that is a radically extreme viewpoint. If you were arguing Arminianism or Wesleyanism you'd still be wrong, but you would at least fall somewhere within the pale of orthodoxy in some of the key aspects of soteriology (such as total depravity).

When you accuse Calvinists of not believing in the Bible and misrepresenting scripture it's the equivalent Zohran Mamdani telling Bernie Sanders he's nor socialist enough and hasn't read Marx correctly. You're the one on the doctrinal margins, @Dave. So very far gone it proves impossible to get a single very fundamental and exceedingly relevant question answered directly.


Is it appropriate to take verses written about saved and regenerate believers (like 1 Jn. 5:1) and apply them to unsaved, unregenerate, non-believers?


"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves the child born of Him."


Adding to the text, you read that first clause to say the clause means the belief caused the birth of God, but that is not what the text states. All the clause states is a correlation, not a causation. If all we had was that one single sentence it would be impossible to know anything about any causation, impossible to know anything other than there exists some otherwise undefined correlation. So don't be saying...

The basis is to not go beyond the text. The proof is in the text itself.

And then go talking about unregenerate unsaved sinners choosing God because NONE of that is in 1 John 5:1.

All of the above is also true of the second clause in that verse. All the text states is a correlation. There's no causation at all. There's no sequence stated (other than the grammatical fact the word "believes" appears before "born," and loving God precedes loving others.

1 John 4:19
We love, because He first loved us.

That is a causal statement. God's love is causal to our love. Therefore, when John, just a few sentences later states, ".....everyone who loves the Father loves the child born of Him," it is necessarily understood none of that love exists without God first loving the lover. That exact same condition exists when John wrote the first clause. Joh was the guy who recorded Jesus stating no one could see the kingdom of God unless s/he was born anew from above. That is a predicate causal statement. New birth has to occur prior to the relevant seeing. You've argued for seeing and hearing to occur by way of the natural human faculties of the sinfully dead and enslaved flesh. You add that idea to 1 John 5:1 inspite of John 3:3. You make that addition because of Flowers' misguided abuse of Storms' personal opinion (apparently thinking that is a rational argument).

There's something else that I do not think anyone has brought to your attention. It's a huge problem in all synergisms. For you (and Flowers) it is possible for a person to actually, factually, undeniably, and irrefutably come to God salvifically in their flesh AND see God and His resurrected Son as they are sufficiently enough to be granted regeneration and the deny God, deny Jesus, deny regeneration, and walk away with all that knowledge and understanding. This begs an elephant-sized question....


Where are these people?


Where are they in scripture? Where are they to be observed in everyday ordinary human life? Where can any of us go to find one of these people who've heard and understood, seen and correctly perceived, actually believed Jesus and known him and His Father sufficiently to warrant regeneration but refused that gift and walked away?

You will notice Flowers never answers that question. He'll teach people believe and don't believe perhaps even going back and forth again and again as their whim and will inclines because that is an inescapable faculty of every human. Where are these correctly hearing and seeing people without salvation? Where are these regenerate people who are also not saved (another logical necessity of Provisionism)?

The basis is to not go beyond the text. The proof is in the text itself.

Then do not add causation to the text. Stick solely with the correlation and say nothing more. Stick with what is stated and do not allow others to add to the text, either. The proof that is in that one verse is a correlation exists. Nothing more.

 

[Josheb]

The basis is to not go beyond the text. The proof is in the text itself.

Then do not add causation to the text [of 1 John 5:1]. Stick solely with the correlation and say nothing more. Stick with what is stated and do not allow others to add to the text, either. The proof that is in that one verse is a correlation exists. Nothing more.

As I stated above, Flowers does not reason through his own positions, and he always neglects the inherent covenant context of the epistolary. Check it out for yourself and verify that fact. Do a search at Soteriology 101 for the word "covenant," and see for yourself. Thirty articles will result. It will take a little of your time to read through them all but IF the reading is done with conscious effort to be objective with your critique, you'll find Flowers has the appearance of reason but faulters many times in many ways and most often either stops short of logical inevitability or sets up a boogie man to be nocked down before clapping his hands to finish. Take the following as an example, in the "God: The Initiator of Salvation" article Flowers asserts Olsen's three options concerning grace are not the only options, adding...

However, there is a more fundamental question that Dr. Olson leaves unaddressed. Does spurning the idea that an unregenerate, fallen man is incapable of responding to the gospel in faith, the theory of Total Inability which is shared by Calvinists and many Arminians, mean that one must believe that man is “the initiator in salvation”? I do not see a good reason to think so. Indeed, this is a false dilemma, since there are other options. In other words, there is no logical reason that disbelief in one would mandate belief in the other. All Christians can agree; God initiates salvation. To illustrate this let me ask yet another series of questions I will spend the rest of the article exploring:​

​

What does it mean for God to initiate salvation? How does God initiate salvation? And would a response to the gospel in faith outside of a special act of prior regeneration or enabling grace be the logical equivalent to man initiating salvation?​

Flowers then dives into the dictionary to define "initiate," and then speaks about the new covenant. He can get away with that with his readers who don't have a more thorough knowledge of the Bible but the screaming silence in that article is the fact the new covenant ties directly back to Abraham (according to Galatians 3). Had Flowers done that he'd have to concede what I posted HERE, namely, ALL salvation occurs within a covenant context and God is the sole initiator and maintainer of His Christologically salvific covenant. God did not ask Abram if Abram wanted to be chosen for God's covenant. God did not ask Abram if Abram wanted to be called by God to participate in the covenant for which Abram had been chosen to participate in the covenant for which Abram had been called. God did not ask Abram if he wanted to leave Ur. God did not ask Abram is Abram wanted to be commanded to leave Ur to participate in the covenant for which Abram had been commanded. God never asked Abram to cut up those animals. That was an act of Abram's flesh that had absolutely not covenant merit at all. God revealed to Abraham His covenant and God made the covenant with Abraham without ever asking Abraham's consent. Only after the covenant was established was Abraham given a choice. The same pattern holds true with Israel. Every synergist - including Flowers - will argue over circumcision but circumcision came years (decades!) after God had established His covenant with Abraham. The promises made to Abraham in that covenant were also made to Abraham's seed..... and that seed is Jesus (see Galatians 3).


Flowers leaves all of that out when expounding on God being the Initiator of salvation.


If the example of Abram is applicable to salvation the God chose you without ever asking you if you wanted to be chosen. He called you without ever asking if you wanted to be called. He commanded you without ever asking you if you ever wanted to be commanded. He made provision every step of your way for your participation in the covenant relationship without ever once asking you if you ever wanted any of it. If the example of Abram/Abraham applies, then you were not even aware of any of it. If the example applies, then it was only after the covenant relationship was established by God with you (monergistically) that you were ever given a choice.

You can read every single one of those articles and find Flowers is silent when it comes to the monergism of the covenant relationship we have with God through His resurrected Son, Jesus. I have read scores and scores of Flowers' articles and have yet to hear or read him come anywhere close to apply all the facts of the covenant relationship as stated and described in scripture. Flowers acknowledges a covenant relationship, and Flowers acknowledges God is the initiator of salvation. And then he is neglectfully silent. When he does mention any covenant aspect of salvation, he is 1) selective with the information, 2) neglectful other very salient information, 3) totally misses the Christological significance of the OT covenants (synergist often do so), and 4) as a result misleads his readers accordingly.


Big huge gaping hole in Provisionism.


When God initiated the covenant with Abraham, he gave Abraham a vision in which God pledged fealty to God on the condition of God's death. Abraham was asleep while that happened. Abraham was not a participant in the suzerain ritual AT ALL. He was not offered a choice, he was not offered an opportunity to have a choice, and he did not assert a choice. Abraham's choice and his volitional attributes were irrelevant to the establishment of the covenant and the covenant was/is Christological.


Be as critical of Flowers as you are of Calvinists. His views are not a rational or scriptural alternative to monergism. They are sophistry.

 

[John Bauer]

That is exactly my point. [1 John 5:1] doesn't say that the faith stated originated as a result of being born again. That faith was only an evidence that being born again had already happened. You get the difference, right?

Yes, I do get the difference. Nevertheless, you are simply mistaken, Dave. Our text does say that faith is the result of being born of God—or, as Storms put it, the consequence or fruit thereof (in the very article you cited). The grammar and logic of this text asserts a causal relation: The perfect tense (gegennētai) indicates a past completed action which has continuing effects into the present, and John deliberately pairs a specific present-tense participle (pisteuōn) as the "continuing effects" of that past completed action (gegennētai).

And I feel it necessary to reiterate here what I had said previously, now with added emphases: "Storms believes (correctly) that 1 John 5:1 (a) doesn't didactically teach it, but (b) does implicitly teach it." If John had wanted to "demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith," we would see it didactically taught here. But his point, as per Storms, is that such activities as believing in Christ are "the evidence of the new birth" (and therefore "provide the church with tests by which to discern between true and spurious believers"), so it is only implicitly taught. But that implication is unmistakable in the Greek. See my previous post for a fuller yet succinct explanation.

You want to argue that faith triggers the new birth, but the text of 1 John 5:1 just won't provide the support your argument requires. The causal relation is clear: Faith doesn't trigger the new birth, it flows from the new birth.

• What you say: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (present tense).
  
  ​
• What the Bible says: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (perfect tense).

You get the difference, right? It's a categorical difference—and one that John employs repeatedly in this epistle (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, and here).

It is worth noting that if John had intended to indicate a sequence without implying a causal relationship, he would naturally have used an aorist construction instead of the perfect tense. For example, he could have said something like, "Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθη (ek tou theou egennēthē—"was born of God"). For information on temporal sequence, causal nuance, and the significance of Greek tense choices, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996).

Incidentally, Reformed theology cites 1 John 5:1 primarily to show that regeneration precedes faith, although the grammar supports a causal relationship. It is God who causes faith, and he does so by means of regeneration—that is, the new life expresses itself in believing. Regeneration precedes faith precisely because regeneration produces faith. That is the purpose for which Storms cites this passage, too—the guy whose work you quoted. The grammatical and logical exegesis is identical in Reformed theology, Sam Storms brief article, and my posts—and unavoidable, try as you might to dance around it (but without any exegesis of your own).

And I want not only you but the readers to observe that stark difference between our posts: I am providing exegetical support for my claim, while you're reasserting yours bereft of any exegesis. I am comfortable with this state of affairs and confident that readers will take that into consideration when evaluating our competing claims.

The basis is to not go beyond the text.

This insinuates that I have gone beyond the text with this interpretation ("not interpreted accurately"), which is a bankrupt allegation because, as anyone can see, I deal directly with the text and in its original language. I am not going beyond the text, I am staying with it.

(That being said, with your references to Galatians and elsewhere when discussing this, I have to wonder if we have a case of projection on your part—since you not only leave John's epistle but even John himself.)

The proof is in the text itself.

It really is, Dave. Let's deal with it—exegetically. Stay with this passage and this epistle, deal with the original text, cite Greek grammars, etc.

As a matter of fact, take me up on the offer of a private debate (i.e., just the two of us) in the Exegesis forum.

This is really a classic illustration of what Calvinists do, as I'm being made more aware of as we continue in these discussions.

Comparing the content of our posts, that is a real compliment. Thank you.

Remember, this is one of the key verses used by Calvinists to rewrite very clear Scripture.

You have not provided any evidence of a Calvinist "rewriting" scripture—a very serious accusation. You may disagree with our exegesis, hermeneutics, and interpretations, but be very careful with your accusations.

 

[Dave]

Yes, I do get the difference. Nevertheless, you are simply mistaken, Dave. Our text does say that faith is the result of being born of God—or, as Storms put it, the consequence or fruit thereof (in the very article you cited). The grammar and logic of this text asserts a causal relation: The perfect tense (gegennētai) indicates a past completed action which has continuing effects into the present, and John deliberately pairs a specific present-tense participle (pisteuōn) as the "continuing effects" of that past completed action (gegennētai).

And I feel it necessary to reiterate here what I had said previously, now with added emphases: "Storms believes (correctly) that 1 John 5:1 (a) doesn't didactically teach it, but (b) does implicitly teach it." If John had wanted to "demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith," we would see it didactically taught here. But his point, as per Storms, is that such activities as believing in Christ are "the evidence of the new birth" (and therefore "provide the church with tests by which to discern between true and spurious believers"), so it is only implicitly taught. But that implication is unmistakable in the Greek. See my previous post for a fuller yet succinct explanation.

You want to argue that faith triggers the new birth, but the text of 1 John 5:1 just won't provide the support your argument requires. The causal relation is clear: Faith doesn't trigger the new birth, it flows from the new birth.

John, I never tried to prove anything other than that your definition of that passage goes beyond the text. Everything that you wrote in the first two paragraphs does not over turn this fact. You keep wanting to reframe the discussion into what I believe. What I believe is not in question.

BTW, The writer John said the same thing in John 1:12-13. The evidence of being born of God was the result of believing, albeit, the promise delayed because of the transition. The promise was made at that time, because they believed already, but the promise fulfilled was later. So the 'born of God' part of that passage, while looking back, looks back to a future promise that was yet unfulfilled. It was tradition that was read into the text there also. It Just goes to show, people can be just as wrong in the Greek as in English when driven by tradition.

The NEV did a great job with the translation.

NEV
John 1:12-13 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

• What you say: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (present tense).
  
• What the Bible says: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (perfect tense).
  
  You get the difference, right? It's a categorical difference—and one that John employs repeatedly in this epistle (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, and here).

Lets keep this about what you believe compared to what the Bible teaches. So lets see how your understanding of 1 John 5:1 stacks up with the exact same kind of scrutiny and hopefully you'll see my point.

What you're saying "Everyone who came to believe that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God"

What the Bible says "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God"

One speaks of cause, the initial faith, while one speaks of evidence, the ongoing faith. "has been born of God", yes, but not as the cause, that's assuming things into the text that are not there. All those other examples that you gave are the same thing.

John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

I'm not going to reply to any liberal argumentation made between that last quote and the next quote in your post. Normally, I would just skip it without saying anything, but then I'll be accused of not answering questions. So I'm just letting you know.

As a matter of fact, take me up on the offer of a private debate (i.e., just the two of us) in the Exegesis forum.

If you don't have the answers here, you won't have them there. I've proven my point, and I don't believe that it's been refuted.

Dave

 

[CrowCross]

1 John 5:1 NKJV Bible

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him."

1 John 5:1 - Compare Bible Verse Translations

Compare Bible translations of 1 John 5:1 using all available Bible versions and commentary. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well"

www.biblestudytools.com

This is one one a few passages that I believe are not interpreted accurately by the consensus. I found and interesting read on this topic that basically says the same things that I'm going to give the link. It elaborates a lot more. I'm going to read the rest of it tonight. I'll keep my argument smaller, but may quote people in this link to save time, and to save your brains from needing to untangle my dyslexia. Here' the link I'm quoting from, which quoted DR. Sam Storms.

1 John 5:1 Does Not Teach Pre-Faith Regeneration

In an earlier post <here> we presented many passages which clearly indicate the ordo salutis (the order of salvation), as expressed by the apostle John when he wrote, “I have written th…

soteriology101.com

Anyways, this passage is often quoted as proof that one must be born again to believe. I think this mistranslation was pointed out very eloquently by Dr. Sam Storms. I believe that he is one of the consensus who believe that the new birth precedes faith. I thank him for his honesty.


Dr. Storms wrote:

"John says in 5:1 that whoever is presently believing in Christ has in the past been born or begotten of God. I.e., a present action of believing is evidence of a past experience of begetting. Is John then saying that new birth or regeneration always precedes and causes saving faith in Christ? Although I believe regeneration (new birth) does precede and cause faith, I do not believe that is John’s point here.

When one examines these texts where the terminology of regeneration is used, one finds that John is concerned with describing the consequences or fruit of the new birth:

Question: “How may I know that regeneration has occurred? How may I know if someone has been born again?”

Answer: “That person will not practice sin (3:9; 5:18). That person will practice righteousness (2:29). That person will love the brethren (4:7). That person will believe in Christ (5:1). And that person will overcome the world (5:4).”

John’s point is simply that these activities are the evidence of the new birth and hence of salvation. Their absence is the evidence that regeneration has not taken place. He makes this point, not because he wants to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith, but because he wants to provide the church with tests by which to discern between true and spurious “believers.”" –Dr. Sam Storms (link is not working, sorry)



The same John in his Gospels wrote this as the purpose of his Gospel. John 20:31

"but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

And later, John wrote this as the purpose of his Epistle, 1 John 5:13

" These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."


This verse, if we do not go beyond the text, is really not in conflict with those who believe that being born again is the result of faith. I'm going to do a thread on John 1:12-13 also. And then John 3:3 maybe. It IS going beyond the text to use it as a proof text to, as Dr. Sam Storms wrote, "demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith"

What does "walk in the light" mean?

 

[Dave]

What does "walk in the light" mean?

Walk in Christ, live by the Spirit, not the flesh. You're referring to 1 John chapter one?

 

[CrowCross]

Walk in Christ, live by the Spirit, not the flesh. You're referring to 1 John chapter one?

Yes.