Enduring Faith Is the Fruit of Regeneration -- Looking at 1 John 5:1 and John 3:16

[DialecticSkeptic]

[The following is the remainder of a discussion that I was having with Eternally-Grateful in another thread about human free-will. Since this is about salvation generally, and regeneration and faith specifically, it wasn't relevant to that discussion and therefore moved here.]

This makes no sense.

[Eternally-Grateful was responding to my statement regarding 1 John 5:1, wherein faith is the result of regeneration.]

It should make sense, for you affirmed the very same principle in your own response. You referred to something John wrote earlier in chapter 2, namely, that by leaving the apostolic community of faith those people showed they never really belonged to the community of faith (v. 19). John reiterates this principle in chapter 5 by implying that those who apostatize thereby prove they were never born of God. If they had been born of God, they would have believed to the end, just as those who really belong to the body of Christ remain therein to the end. (This fits the broader context of his epistle overall, which emphasizes fruitful perseverance as a mark of genuine faith.)

So, if they are believing, they are born of God!

Correct, insofar as their believing is continuous or ongoing. Those who abandon the faith prove they never were born of God. To state it positively, those who are born of God never ultimately fall away (perseverance of the saints). "I shall lose none of all those he has given me," Jesus said—literally none, brother. Our assurance rests in the security of our salvation, which is grounded in Christ's perfect faithfulness.

As you said yourself, "They may have said they believed, but there is a difference between mere belief and faith. Paul said we are saved by grace through faith, not mental assent or mere belief." Again, the phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ("everyone who believes") contains a present active participle, which conveys continuous or ongoing action; in Johannine usage, this participle regularly signifies a living, abiding faith, not a one-time or superficial belief.

You can't say they were never born of God, because at one time they were actively believing.

I can say it, for God said it—all throughout John's gospel and epistles.

Look, I have no doubt that they professed with their mouth and made a good show of it, but that belief had no root in their heart (Matt 13:20-22; cf. Matt 15:8-9; Rom 10:10; Heb 3:12). Only a true and living faith—produced by God through regeneration (a changed heart) and perfected through sanctification (a changed life)—endures to the end. The adversary has deceptive counterfeits that look for all the world like the real thing (Matt 7:21–23; 2 Cor 11:13–15), but they will always be exposed in time because they were never born of God—for when God begins that good work in someone, he will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Php 1:6).

If at any time I believed, then I was at that moment born again [and] given the promise that I will never perish [but] have eternal life.

So you say. However, 1 John 5:1 tells a different story—that those who are born of God experience an ABIDING faith that endures to the end. If that is you, praise the Lord.

The promises of God are not for those whose faith is counterfeit—dead (Jas 2:14) and fleeting.

I do not have to continue to believe [in order] to continue to be born again, ...

Uhh ... <scratches head> ... correct, because being born again (regeneration) is a one-time thing. (God does it right and efficaciously the first time.) I'm afraid the phrase "continue to be born again" strikes me as biblically unintelligible. Belief (πιστεύων) is an ongoing thing (through sanctification), regeneration (γεγέννηται) is not.

Those who ARE born of God WILL continue believing (i.e., they will never ultimately fall away), notwithstanding occasional seasons of unbelief (e.g., Mark 9:24; Luke 22:31-32).

I already have [eternal life].

True, if you're one of those who have true, transformative, abiding faith involving personal trust and commitment (according to the grammar and structure of John 3:16, which John wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit).

[John 3:16 says] "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" [NKJV].

(1) Whosoever (pas), or all, or whoever, or all who (2) look up, as those who were saved in Moses's day, (3) will be rescued, will be born again, ...

[Problematic term highlighted.]

You need to recognize and acknowledge that you're imposing the phrase "will be born again" onto the text, because it is not there. Since I asked you to show me where it says in John 3:10-19 that those who believe "will be born again" (γεγέννηται, gegennetai), you cannot simply assume the very thing to be proved. You have smuggled your conclusion into your reading of the text, rather than demonstrating it from the text.

John 3:16 says that eternal life belongs to those with a true, abiding faith. It doesn't say they will be born again—and of course it doesn't, for the very same author clearly states later (1 John 5:1) that those with a true, abiding faith HAVE BEEN born of God (perfect tense). If John had intended to say they WILL BE born again, he would have used the future passive indicative. But we can see that he didn't.

Remember what you said (link): "I just try to stick to the word [of God]."

[John 3:16 says,] "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, ..." [snip rest]

Just like God loved Israel and gave them an opportunity to be saved from the serpents bite, he loved the word—so much—that he sent his Son into the world ...

Just for the sake of informing you and the readers, unrelated to this discussion: The Greek word οὕτως (houtos), as used here, is drawing our attention particularly to the nature of God's love for the world, or the way in which he chose to express it.

As you indicated, the preceding text (vv. 14-15) compared Christ's crucifixion to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. This suggests that verse 16 is explaining the way in which God's love was demonstrated—by giving his Son to be lifted up for salvation. Thus, the verse is more accurately translated as, "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" (which is how the New English Translation renders it). It is common in Modern English to understand the word "so" in the sense of intensity—"so much"—but the text was written in Koine Greek.

If you notice here, three times ... God said we must believe his promise by looking to the cross. ("No one comes to the father but through me.") And three times he said that those who do will be rescued. ... They have been born again ...

Correct. If you have a true, abiding faith, then you "have been" born again, as you say (and so does John in his first epistle)—

—not "will be" born again.

This is not only one of the greatest gospel passages in the word of God, it is also one of the most [assuring] passages for those who been saved. If we translate it right, our security is here: God keeps his promises. When he says forever, he means it. If he says you will never die. he means it.

Amen to that.

But we must understand and take seriously that the promises of God are for those who abide in faith to the end. That is just what πιστεύων (pisteuon) means, brother.

The promises of God do not apply to those who make a one-time profession while living a worldly life, to those with a counterfeit faith (Gal 1:6–9), or to those whose superficial faith or mere intellectual assent fades over time. To those who are born of God, Jesus promises, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father's hand" (John 10:28-29). In other words, the faith of those born of God endures to the end—for when God begins that good work in someone, he will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

Again, those who say we can stop believing and lose this promise take it because the word believe is present tense active.

As I understand things, those who are born of God can stop believing for a season, but never permanently (according to the manifold promises of God).

Those who do stop believing permanently show that they never were born of God.

They offer us no security, and put the onus of salvation on our ability, not God's promise.

Who are "they"? Surely, neither Calvinists nor those who hold to Reformed theology put the onus of salvation on our ability!

So, who does?

 

[Josheb]

@Eternally-Grateful : If at any time I believed, then I was at that moment born again [and] given the promise that I will never perish [but] have eternal life.

What if you were born anew from above before you believed and that new birth is the impetus for your believing?

How do you get around making God dependent on the sinner?



@Eternally-Grateful : They offer us no security, and put the onus of salvation on our ability, not God's promise.

I'm with @DialecticSkeptic here, Who is "they"??? And who is the "our"???

How is that part about the "they" putting the onus of salvation on "our" ability different from "at any time I believe"? Are you suggesting it is not within your ability to believe prior to being born again? Or is it being suggested believing prior to being born again is somehow not your ability?


@DialecticSkeptic,

Good op, but lengthy and laden with a lot of content that could beget a plethora of differing replies. In addition to the title, is there a single thesis statement readers of the op can understand as the point of comment or inquiry?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In addition to the title, is there a single thesis statement readers of the op can understand as the point of comment or inquiry?

No, the title of the thread captures the essence of the point, as intended. John 3:16 and 1 John 5:1 aren't talking about intellectual assent or a temporary faith; it is only those with a living, transformative, enduring faith who have been born of God (not will be). Those who ultimately fall away were never born of God.

 

[Josheb]

No, the title of the thread captures the essence of the point, as intended. John 3:16 and 1 John 5:1 aren't talking about intellectual assent or a temporary faith; it is only those with a living, transformative, enduring faith who have been born of God (not will be). Those who ultimately fall away were never born of God.

100% correct on all points. Let's see how @Eternally-Grateful answers the four questions of Post #2.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

[The following is the remainder of a discussion that I was having with Eternally-Grateful in another thread about human free-will. Since this is about salvation generally, and regeneration and faith specifically, it wasn't relevant to that discussion and therefore moved here.]



[Eternally-Grateful was responding to my statement regarding 1 John 5:1, wherein faith is the result of regeneration.]

It should make sense, for you affirmed the very same principle in your own response. You referred to something John wrote earlier in chapter 2, namely, that by leaving the apostolic community of faith those people showed they never really belonged to the community of faith (v. 19). John reiterates this principle in chapter 5 by implying that those who apostatize thereby prove they were never born of God. If they had been born of God, they would have believed to the end, just as those who really belong to the body of Christ remain therein to the end. (This fits the broader context of his epistle overall, which emphasizes fruitful perseverance as a mark of genuine faith.)

Actually all it shows is they never truly believed. Their faith was never in Christ. it was in something else.

Its no different that the jew. who trusted his salvation was by the law. But tried this new Christian thing. but it just did nto work out. so they returned to the law.

They never trusted Christ. hence were never saved. They trusted their own righteousness.

Correct, insofar as their believing is continuous or ongoing. Those who abandon the faith prove they never were born of God. To state it positively, those who are born of God never ultimately fall away (perseverance of the saints). "I shall lose none of all those he has given me," Jesus said—literally none, brother. Our assurance rests in the security of our salvation, which is grounded in Christ's perfect faithfulness.

But to use it in such a way. it means that there is a possibility.

Once a person believes they are born of God.

They do not have to continue.. Their new birth is set in stone. because it was not them that saved themselves. god saved them

As you said yourself, "They may have said they believed, but there is a difference between mere belief and faith. Paul said we are saved by grace through faith, not mental assent or mere belief." Again, the phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ("everyone who believes") contains a present active participle, which conveys continuous or ongoing action; in Johannine usage, this participle regularly signifies a living, abiding faith, not a one-time or superficial belief.

Again, to use it in this context. it means they could lose faith.

I disagree. hence it is not contrinued faith that is required.

I can say it, for God said it—all throughout John's gospel and epistles.

Yes. it was not continued faith that saved them, it was their initial faith.

which will never fail. Because God never fails us.

all who are believing.

If you "one who is believing, you can know you are saved.

if you are not. you know you are condemned.

that's all it means.

Look, I have no doubt that they professed with their mouth and made a good show of it, but that belief had no root in their heart (Matt 13:20-22; cf. Matt 15:8-9; Rom 10:10; Heb 3:12). Only a true and living faith—produced by God through regeneration (a changed heart) and perfected through sanctification (a changed life)—endures to the end. The adversary has deceptive counterfeits that look for all the world like the real thing (Matt 7:21–23; 2 Cor 11:13–15), but they will always be exposed in time because they were never born of God—for when God begins that good work in someone, he will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Php 1:6).
so God could not convince them?

I am sorry,. if you do not know in your heart. you will never call out to a God who is unseen.. for a salvation which is unknown.

Need to break this up over 1000 words

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So you say. However, 1 John 5:1 tells a different story—that those who are born of God experience an ABIDING faith that endures to the end. If that is you, praise the Lord.

lol.. I think we are mixing ourselves up.

All faith is abiding, there is no such thing as a faith that does not abide.

The promises of God are not for those whose faith is counterfeit—dead (Jas 2:14) and fleeting.

Never said otherwise. It goes for the licentious of james. or the legalist of pal.

Uhh ... <scratches head> ... correct, because being born again (regeneration) is a one-time thing. (God does it right and efficaciously the first time.) I'm afraid the phrase "continue to be born again" strikes me as biblically unintelligible. Belief (πιστεύων) is an ongoing thing (through sanctification), regeneration (γεγέννηται) is not.

But that is the excuse being given

Belief is continuous active..

Those who ARE born of God WILL continue believing (i.e., they will never ultimately fall away), notwithstanding occasional seasons of unbelief (e.g., Mark 9:24; Luke 22:31-32).

I never said otherwise. so again, As in John 3, The one who believes is born again, they will never perish and live forever.

Not because they continued. but because God saved them..

True, if you're one of those who have true, transformative, abiding faith involving personal trust and commitment (according to the grammar and structure of John 3:16, which John wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit).

again, Just like the jews in moses day.

those who trusted God looked to the serpent and lived.

those who did not trust in God did not look and died.

he who believes (saving faith) is not condemned,. he who does not is condemned already

[Problematic term highlighted.]

You need to recognize and acknowledge that you're imposing the phrase "will be born again" onto the text, because it is not there. Since I asked you to show me where it says in John 3:10-19 that those who believe "will be born again" (γεγέννηται, gegennetai), you cannot simply assume the very thing to be proved. You have smuggled your conclusion into your reading of the text, rather than demonstrating it from the text.

Actually it is not problematic.

1. The people were dead.
2. God provided a savior (the bronze serpent or the Cross of Christ)
3. The people who trusted in Christ were given life (born again) and this life would be forever. hence they will never die.

it all fits like a glove

John 3:16 says that eternal life belongs to those with a true, abiding faith. It doesn't say they will be born again—

so the promise they will never perish and their have everlasting LIFE has nothing to do with new birth?

this makes no sense.

What you want me to see is that they had this promise to never die and had life eternal the moment they were born again BEFORE they had faith. I can not do that. nor does it fit in what Jesus said. He said this everlasting life came after faith

and of course it doesn't, for the very same author clearly states later (1 John 5:1) that those with a true, abiding faith HAVE BEEN born of God (perfect tense). If John had intended to say they WILL BE born again, he would have used the future passive indicative. But we can see that he didn't.

Just like Jesus said

those who believe (true abiding faith) will never perish, but live forever.

again, it all fits

Remember what you said (link): "I just try to stick to the word [of God]."

so do I

Just for the sake of informing you and the readers, unrelated to this discussion: The Greek word οὕτως (houtos), as used here, is drawing our attention particularly to the nature of God's love for the world, or the way in which he chose to express it.

As you indicated, the preceding text (vv. 14-15) compared Christ's crucifixion to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. This suggests that verse 16 is explaining the way in which God's love was demonstrated—by giving his Son to be lifted up for salvation. Thus, the verse is more accurately translated as, "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" (which is how the New English Translation renders it). It is common in Modern English to understand the word "so" in the sense of intensity—"so much"—but the text was written in Koine Greek.

This agrees 100% with my view. and is what I have pretty much been saying this whole time.

Thank you

He so loved the world. so that all who believe...........

the world is not all who believe. it is the world..

all who believe are the ones who will recieve the love of God.

Correct. If you have a true, abiding faith, then you "have been" born again, as you say (and so does John in his first epistle)—

—not "will be" born again.

we are born again the moment of faith not sure why you keep pointing to will be.

will be is the answer.

all who believe are.. or in the future all who believe will be..

depends on context.

Amen to that.

But we must understand and take seriously that the promises of God are for those who abide in faith to the end. That is just what πιστεύων (pisteuon) means, brother.

what if we lost faith?

see the issue i have?

The promises of God do not apply to those who make a one-time profession while living a worldly life, to those with a counterfeit faith (Gal 1:6–9), or to those whose superficial faith or mere intellectual assent fades over time. To those who are born of God, Jesus promises, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father's hand" (John 10:28-29). In other words, the faith of those born of God endures to the end—for when God begins that good work in someone, he will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

I agree.

I can say a sinners prayer, it does not save me.

pure faith allowed God to save me, God will not be mocked.

As I understand things, those who are born of God can stop believing for a season, but never permanently (according to the manifold promises of God).

Those who do stop believing permanently show that they never were born of God.

I do not think a person can stop believing.

I believe they never believed to begin with

Who are "they"? Surely, neither Calvinists nor those who hold to Reformed theology put the onus of salvation on our ability!

They are those who say we can lose salvation.. yes. You and I are on the same page here

So, who does?

any church who claims salvation must be merited by works. by any reason outside of faith in the savior.

do we trust self (unbelief) . or do we trust God (belief)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@Eternally-Grateful : If at any time I believed, then I was at that moment born again [and] given the promise that I will never perish [but] have eternal life.

What if you were born anew from above before you believed and that new birth is the impetus for your believing?

I was not. so does not matter

How do you get around making God dependent on the sinner?

Because God is a God of love.

@Eternally-Grateful : They offer us no security, and put the onus of salvation on our ability, not God's promise.

I'm with @DialecticSkeptic here, Who is "they"??? And who is the "our"???

How is that part about the "they" putting the onus of salvation on "our" ability different from "at any time I believe"? Are you suggesting it is not within your ability to believe prior to being born again? Or is it being suggested believing prior to being born again is somehow not your ability?

Because they trust in Self. I trusted in God.

see the difference?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

No, the title of the thread captures the essence of the point, as intended. John 3:16 and 1 John 5:1 aren't talking about intellectual assent or a temporary faith; it is only those with a living, transformative, enduring faith who have been born of God (not will be). Those who ultimately fall away were never born of God.

we are both in agreement here. Amen!

 

[Josheb]

I was not. so does not matter

You were, but you just haven't realized it yet, so it does matter. That's the crux of the issue. The fact is there's not a single verse in the entire Bible stating the sinner's will is stereologically salient prior to regeneration. Every single version of synergism is solely inferential in construction and it is very difficult to get a synergist to examine his own eisegesis.

Because God is a God of love.

Make that case.


Make the case for God's love necessitating the righteous infinite Law Maker making Himself dependent on the finite sinfully unrighteous lawless sinner. Use scripture.

Because they trust in Self. I trusted in God.

The question was, "Who is 'they'?" Your answer is "Those who trust in self." When you say "I trusted in God," there are two problems.

1. Trusting "in" God is not the same as trusting God, and
2. Trusting in God is a function of applying the human trust faculties of the sinner. In other words, you trusted in your sinner's faculties of trust to trust in God and that is the same as trusting in your Self.

The problem of synergism has been demonstrated, not resolved.

see the difference?

There is not difference but I see how you think a difference exists. Most of us monergists were former synergists, @Eternally-Grateful. You're not posting anything we do not already know. Make the effort to critique your own pov because there are very important and critically fatal mistakes within synergism. We'll try to help you see those "differences" if you willing and amenable.

No sinner can "trust" in God without first trusting in his already sin-adulterated faculties.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You were,

No,

I was not made alive and forgiven the wage of sin, before I was justified.

but you just haven't realized it yet, so it does matter.

I have realized it..

That's the crux of the issue. The fact is there's not a single verse in the entire Bible stating the sinner's will is stereologically salient prior to regeneration.

There are many of them.. John 3 Believe, John 4, Ask and I will give you. John 5 Hear and believe, John 6, Eat, Believe, Drink the food which endures forever.

I can find so many more.. so can you if you look

Every single version of synergism is solely inferential in construction and it is very difficult to get a synergist to examine his own eisegesis.

Please. I do not do isms, if you want to talk to me, talk about what I am saying. not what some man made up in some ism..

I will not respond to isms..

Make that case.

I already did

Make the case for God's love necessitating the righteous infinite Law Maker making Himself dependent on the finite sinfully unrighteous lawless sinner. Use scripture.

The question was, "Who is 'they'?" Your answer is "Those who trust in self." When you say "I trusted in God," there are two problems.

1. Trusting "in" God is not the same as trusting God, and
2. Trusting in God is a function of applying the human trust faculties of the sinner. In other words, you trusted in your sinner's faculties of trust to trust in God and that is the same as trusting in your Self.

The problem of synergism has been demonstrated, not resolved.

There is not difference but I see how you think a difference exists. Most of us monergists were former synergists, @Eternally-Grateful. You're not posting anything we do not already know. Make the effort to critique your own pov because there are very important and critically fatal mistakes within synergism. We'll try to help you see those "differences" if you willing and amenable.

No sinner can "trust" in God without first trusting in his already sin-adulterated faculties.

Make the case that I saved myself.

You can't..

Again, I will not discus isms.. Your trying to put me in a mold of a group.

I follow the word of God. not men..

 

[Josheb]

I do not do isms.

That's a cop out and a false statement. The posts may not be called by their ~ism but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks, like a duck and lays duck eggs then it's a duck.

Make the case that I saved myself.

You can't..

Not only have I already done so, but you have, too! Can you not see it?

In order for anyone to claim they trusted in God prior to generation they must necessarily and inescapably be relying on their fleshly faculties of trust and doing so from within the sinful state. That is the epitome of trusting the self.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Eternally-Grateful had much to emphasize about those who never truly believed, which is entirely consistent with what I said in my opening post and therefore I have nothing more to add beyond appreciating his agreement. Indeed, those who abandon the faith prove they never were born of God. To state it positively, those who are born of God never ultimately fall away; their true and living faith endures to the end.

But he had some other things to say, too, which I will examine now.

Once a person believes [truly], they are born of God. They do not have to continue.

But continue in what? Is he saying they don't have to continue in that belief? Maybe. But my point was that they WILL continue, not that they have to, and that according to the promises of God.

Notice, however, the slippery language he employs here. Once a person believes truly, they are born of God? That wording could be either accepting or rejecting the exegesis I provided. It is rather slippery. Again, according to the apostle John, those with a true, abiding faith HAVE BEEN born of God (perfect passive indicative), showing that regeneration is the cause and true faith that endures to the end is the result.

"It is not continued faith that is required," he said—erroneously, for that is exactly what the present active participle πιστεύων (pisteuon) requires, referring to a true faith that endures to the end (but by God's promise, not human effort).

Again, to use it in this context. it means they could lose faith.

Here, too, Eternally-Grateful employs slippery language. He asserts that "they could lose faith"—without specifying whether he means permanently or temporarily.

If he is saying that a person with true faith could lose that faith temporarily, then he is merely reiterating a point that I made in my opening post ("Those who are born of God can stop believing for a season, but never permanently").

But if he is saying that it could be lost permanently, then he needs to provide an exegesis of 1 John 5:1 with a focus on the present active participle πιστεύων (pisteuon).

Yes, it was not continued faith that saved them, it was their initial faith.

Eternally-Grateful is wrong here, too. I would love to discuss the fact that it's not their faith that saves them (whether initial or ongoing). Salvation is found not in the act of faith but in the object of that faith, namely, Jesus Christ. As Warfield explained, it is not faith in and of itself that saves, nor even faith in Christ that saves, but rather it is Christ himself that saves through faith. "The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself but in the almighty Savior on whom it rests. ... The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith." (See his chapter on "The Biblical Doctrine of Faith" in The Works of B. B. Warfield, pp. 2:501-507.)

Eternally-Grateful said our faith "will never fail," but we know from experience that it can and does falter or fail (though not permanently). It is the object of our faith that never fails, the God of promise revealed in Christ.

All faith is abiding. There is no such thing as a faith that does not abide.

This, too, is wrong. There is such a thing as a faith that doesn't endure—a dead faith (Jas 2:14), which eventually fades into nothing.

As in John 3, the one who believes is born again.

Of course the one who believes IS born again, for he HAS BEEN born again. That is simply what the perfect tense of γεγέννηται in 1 John 5:1 means, a completed action with ongoing results in the present. A person who has been born of God remains in that state (for the call of God is irrevocable, Rom 11:29). It would be helpful if Eternally-Grateful would drop the slippery language and plainly express either his agreement or disagreement with the grammatical structure of 1 John 5:1 (like he used to when he said the one who believes "will be" born again, which contradicts that passage).

Actually it is not problematic.

1. The people were dead.
2. God provided a savior ...
3. The people who trusted in Christ were given life (born again) and this life would be forever. Hence, they will never die.

It all fits like a glove.

Here we have more slippery language (which misses the point I had raised about the problematic term). He had said that those who look to and trust in Jesus WILL BE born again (link), a problematic term in light of the grammatical structure of 1 John 5:1, which says they HAVE BEEN born again.

There is no problem, he replies. We see the people who trusted in Christ were born again. It all fits like a glove.

But that is slippery language, for it could be understood in one of at least two ways. (1) "The people who trusted in Christ [did so because they] were born again." (2) "The people who trusted in Christ were [subsequently] born again." He carefully and effectively threads that needle, not specifying which one he intended. And I'm probably not the only one who noticed.

So, the promise that they will never perish but have everlasting life has nothing to do with new birth? This makes no sense.

The reader can clearly see that I neither said nor implied any such thing (but rather the opposite!). This question came out of left field.

Therefore, I am officially calling out Eternally-Grateful on a logical fallacy. This was a straw man; he had to fabricate a view that is different from and weaker than the one I actually hold in order to say it made no sense. I agree it makes no sense, but it also doesn't reflect what I said or believe. According to the Rules & Guidelines, what he is required to do now is acknowledge this allegation and resolve it. Acknowledging the allegation means that his response must include addressing it, and he can resolve it by either admitting he committed the fallacy or explaining how what he said accurately reflects what I said (using quoted material from me and linking to where I said it).

Just like Jesus said, those who believe (true abiding faith) will never perish but live forever.

He is right, of course. They will never perish but live forever. But we were talking about regeneration or being born of God, which produces the faith in which that promise is realized.

This agrees 100% with my view ... He so loved the world ...

Evidently, the exegesis of John 3:16 that I highlighted DISAGREES with his view. Again, "It is common in Modern English to understand the word ‘so’ in the sense of intensity—‘so much’—but the text was written in Koine Greek."

All who believe are the ones who will recieve the love of God.

On the contrary, according to Paul, all who believe have already received the love of God. Those whom God foreknew, Paul said, which denotes a loving and elective knowledge, not mere cognition. These on whom God set his electing covenantal love are also predestined and called by him. That latter part is a key focus here, because regeneration is a constituent of effectual calling.

We are born again the moment of faith. All who believe are [born again], or in the future all who believe will be. Depends on context.

Notice that here he simply denies the grammatical structure of 1 John 5:1, which says those who believe HAVE BEEN born again (whereas Eternally-Grateful says those who believe are in that moment born again).

... the promises of God are for those who abide in faith to the end.

What if we lost faith?

Again, notice that he doesn't specify whether temporarily or permanently. God's children can go through seasons of anger or doubt that cripple their faith, but they will be restored. His children never abandon faith entirely.

If a person loses faith permanently, they prove thereby that they never had true faith to begin with.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Eternally-Grateful had much to emphasize about those who never truly believed, which is entirely consistent with what I said in my opening post and therefore I have nothing more to add beyond appreciating his agreement. Indeed, those who abandon the faith prove they never were born of God. To state it positively, those who are born of God never ultimately fall away; their true and living faith endures to the end.

But he had some other things to say, too, which I will examine now.



But continue in what? Is he saying they don't have to continue in that belief? Maybe. But my point was that they WILL continue, not that they have to, and that according to the promises of God.

Notice, however, the slippery language he employs here. Once a person believes truly, they are born of God? That wording could be either accepting or rejecting the exegesis I provided. It is rather slippery. Again, according to the apostle John, those with a true, abiding faith HAVE BEEN born of God (perfect passive indicative), showing that regeneration is the cause and true faith that endures to the end is the result.

"It is not continued faith that is required," he said—erroneously, for that is exactly what the present active participle πιστεύων (pisteuon) requires, referring to a true faith that endures to the end (but by God's promise, not human effort).




Here, too, Eternally-Grateful employs slippery language. He asserts that "they could lose faith"—without specifying whether he means permanently or temporarily.

If he is saying that a person with true faith could lose that faith temporarily, then he is merely reiterating a point that I made in my opening post ("Those who are born of God can stop believing for a season, but never permanently").

But if he is saying that it could be lost permanently, then he needs to provide an exegesis of 1 John 5:1 with a focus on the present active participle πιστεύων (pisteuon).




Eternally-Grateful is wrong here, too. I would love to discuss the fact that it's not their faith that saves them (whether initial or ongoing). Salvation is found not in the act of faith but in the object of that faith, namely, Jesus Christ. As Warfield explained, it is not faith in and of itself that saves, nor even faith in Christ that saves, but rather it is Christ himself that saves through faith. "The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself but in the almighty Savior on whom it rests. ... The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith." (See his chapter on "The Biblical Doctrine of Faith" in The Works of B. B. Warfield, pp. 2:501-507.)

Eternally-Grateful said our faith "will never fail," but we know from experience that it can and does falter or fail (though not permanently). It is the object of our faith that never fails, the God of promise revealed in Christ.




This, too, is wrong. There is such a thing as a faith that doesn't endure—a dead faith (Jas 2:14), which eventually fades into nothing.




Of course the one who believes IS born again, for he HAS BEEN born again. That is simply what the perfect tense of γεγέννηται in 1 John 5:1 means, a completed action with ongoing results in the present. A person who has been born of God remains in that state (for the call of God is irrevocable, Rom 11:29). It would be helpful if Eternally-Grateful would drop the slippery language and plainly express either his agreement or disagreement with the grammatical structure of 1 John 5:1 (like he used to when he said the one who believes "will be" born again, which contradicts that passage).




Here we have more slippery language (which misses the point I had raised about the problematic term). He had said that those who look to and trust in Jesus WILL BE born again (link), a problematic term in light of the grammatical structure of 1 John 5:1, which says they HAVE BEEN born again.

There is no problem, he replies. We see the people who trusted in Christ were born again. It all fits like a glove.

But that is slippery language, for it could be understood in one of at least two ways. (1) "The people who trusted in Christ [did so because they] were born again." (2) "The people who trusted in Christ were [subsequently] born again." He carefully and effectively threads that needle, not specifying which one he intended. And I'm probably not the only one who noticed.




The reader can clearly see that I neither said nor implied any such thing (but rather the opposite!). This question came out of left field.

Therefore, I am officially calling out Eternally-Grateful on a logical fallacy. This was a straw man; he had to fabricate a view that is different from and weaker than the one I actually hold in order to say it made no sense. I agree it makes no sense, but it also doesn't reflect what I said or believe. According to the Rules & Guidelines, what he is required to do now is acknowledge this allegation and resolve it. Acknowledging the allegation means that his response must include addressing it, and he can resolve it by either admitting he committed the fallacy or explaining how what he said accurately reflects what I said (using quoted material from me and linking to where I said it).




He is right, of course. They will never perish but live forever. But we were talking about regeneration or being born of God, which produces the faith in which that promise is realized.




Evidently, the exegesis of John 3:16 that I highlighted DISAGREES with his view. Again, "It is common in Modern English to understand the word ‘so’ in the sense of intensity—‘so much’—but the text was written in Koine Greek."




On the contrary, according to Paul, all who believe have already received the love of God. Those whom God foreknew, Paul said, which denotes a loving and elective knowledge, not mere cognition. These on whom God set his electing covenantal love are also predestined and called by him. That latter part is a key focus here, because regeneration is a constituent of effectual calling.




Notice that here he simply denies the grammatical structure of 1 John 5:1, which says those who believe HAVE BEEN born again (whereas Eternally-Grateful says those who believe are in that moment born again).




Again, notice that he doesn't specify whether temporarily or permanently. God's children can go through seasons of anger or doubt that cripple their faith, but they will be restored. His children never abandon faith entirely.

If a person loses faith permanently, they prove thereby that they never had true faith to begin with.

i think what the user here exposes is another majore flaw I have with Tulip

Perseverance of the Saints. In apparent counter the arminian call that a saint must persevere till the end or he will lose salvation

There is on problem. A saint does not persevere. A saint on any given day apart from grace would be lost with no hope. because Gods demands are so far above our reach we can not reach it. Which is why we are given Gods righteousness not our own.

We do not persevere. Just like God saved us, God keeps us.

To say we must continue to believe in by practice claiming we could stop.

So the user can use slippery slope language all they want.. They are the one on a slippery slope

One who is believing was given eternal life

If they must continue to believe to keep eternal life 9as the arminian would say) then they never had eternal life.

So while the word is present tense active, All it means literally is the one who is believing has eternal life. it is not looking to future belief, it is looking to who has it now. It is assume (since the person has eternal life and Gods promise they will never perish) that their salvation is finished complete. Not dependent on them (it never was to begin with)

---

MOD HAT: This post by Eternally-Grateful has violated the Rules & Guidelines of the forums, specifically rule 4.4 which requires him to acknowledge and refute or otherwise resolve the allegation, made by DialecticSkeptic, that he committed the straw man logical fallacy. The rule also requires Eternally-Grateful (as well as DialecticSkeptic) to demonstrate a willingness to be corrected if mistaken.
​

 

[Josheb]

i think what the user here exposes is another majore flaw I have with Tulip

Perseverance of the Saints. In apparent counter the arminian call that a saint must persevere till the end or he will lose salvation

There is on problem. A saint does not persevere. A saint on any given day apart from grace would be lost with no hope. because Gods demands are so far above our reach we can not reach it. Which is why we are given Gods righteousness not our own.

We do not persevere. Just like God saved us, God keeps us.

To say we must continue to believe in by practice claiming we could stop.

So the user can use slippery slope language all they want.. They are the one on a slippery slope

One who is believing was given eternal life

If they must continue to believe to keep eternal life 9as the arminian would say) then they never had eternal life.

So while the word is present tense active, All it means literally is the one who is believing has eternal life. it is not looking to future belief, it is looking to who has it now. It is assume (since the person has eternal life and Gods promise they will never perish) that their salvation is finished complete. Not dependent on them (it never was to begin with)

That's a misunderstanding of TULIP's "P." The P has absolutely nothing to do with the faculties of the one being saved. The P is entirely about God's work, not the human's work. This is why "Perseverance of the Saints" is also called "Eternal Security." You must remember Calvinist soteriology is monergistic. In other words, every single element is God-only, always and everywhere only God. There's never an element where it is God+human in monergism. If you ever read any monergist posting about any human aspect in TULIP then you now know they've messed up. Unblessedly, that happens a lot...... so it is not helpful to synergists when monergists try to explain monergism and mess up their own soteriology. Blessedly, a lot has been posted correctly explaining TULIP in this forum. So do a little thread surfing.


T = God's grace overcome human inability.
U = God decided the matter without considering any faculty of the sinner He saves.
L = God effects atonement only in the lives of those He actually saves.
I = God completes the work He purposes to accomplish by His grace.
P = God works in those He saves to assure their salvation.


That is how TULIP should be understood. God, God, God, God, God. God first, God first, God first..... God alone, God alone, God alone..... It is never God+plus+human anything. It's not usually worded or explained that way but no matter how it's worded the fact is Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist soteriology is monergistic. God alone is the causal agent of salvation.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think what [DialecticSkeptic] exposes is another major flaw I have with TULIP—the perseverance of the saints, an apparent counter to the Arminian [claim] that a saint must persevere till the end or he will lose salvation.

There is one problem: A saint does not persevere. A saint, on any given day, apart from grace would be lost with no hope, because God's demands are so far above our reach that we can not reach it. That is why we are given God's righteousness, not our own.

There is some irony in Eternally-Grateful objecting to the P of the acrostic TULIP (perseverance of the saints), saying that the saints do not persevere in and of themselves. "Just like God saved us," he said, "God keeps us." The irony flows from the fact that this is precisely what the P doctrine affirms (in connection with the T, total depravity). According to this doctrine,

All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of almighty God and thus persevere to the end. ... The elect are not only redeemed by Christ and renewed by the Spirit; they are also kept in faith by the almighty power of God.

-- David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (P&R Publishing, 1963).
​

Because [in Adam] we are radically depraved, and because salvation depends on God's sovereign acts in our salvation, we have a security that is based on his ability and will, rather than our own. If salvation depended in any measure on what we were able to do or contribute to it, we would not be secure at all.

-- James M. Boice and Philip G. Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Crossway, 2002).
​

I also have to wonder if he fully grasped my post. His response does not demonstrate any awareness of the fact that I explicitly said these passages refer to "a true faith that endures to the end (but by God's promise, not human effort)."

So, once again, we have Eternally-Grateful referring to a flaw that we are left struggling to find. Since the doctrines of grace, including the perseverance of the saints, teach precisely that it is God who saves us and that this involves him also keeping us—"I will not lose even one of all those the Father has given me," Jesus promised—we have to wonder where the flaw is supposed to be. And, since I said myself that this perseverance is "by God's promise, not human effort," I am lefting wondering how my post exposed whatever this flaw is supposed to be. Read Calvinist literature on the doctrines of grace (i.e., TULIP). We have been saying this for centuries.

To say that we must continue to believe is, in practice, claiming that we could stop. ... If they must continue to believe [in order] to keep eternal life (as the Arminian would say), then they never had eternal life.

And who is saying that? Certainly not me.

Eternally-Grateful should engage with what his interlocutor has actually written. At no point in my posts have I said that the saints "must" continue to believe, much less by their own strength. "My point," I said, "was that they WILL continue, not that they have to"—i.e., must—"and that according to the promises of God"—i.e., not human effort. And my statement is fully consistent with the P of the acrostic TULIP, as my references above attest (and I can supply many more).

So, the user can use slippery slope language all they want.

One of three possible things is happening here: (1) Eternally-Grateful was not writing carefully and actually meant to say "slippery language." (2) He is referring to some reasoning of mine as a valid slippery slope. (3) He is referring to some reasoning of mine as a fallacious slippery slope.

If he meant the first one, then he is required by the Rules & Guidelines of these forums to demonstrate the slippery language using quoted material from my post (the way I did for his).

If he meant the second, then he is required to demonstrate the causal chain that I was arguing.

If he meant the third, then he has compounded his violations of the rules by accusing me of a logical fallacy without first addressing my allegation against him.

So, while the word [pisteuon] is present tense active, all it means literally is the one who is believing has eternal life. It is not looking to future belief, it is looking to who has it now. It is assuming—since the person has eternal life and God's promise that they will never perish—that their salvation is finished, complete, not dependent on them (it never was to begin with).

I asked Eternally-Grateful to "provide an exegesis of 1 John 5:1" with a focus on this word. What he provided, however, bore little resemblance to exegesis (to state the matter politely). He did not engage with the text meaningfully, failing to even interact with the original language or provide any scholarly sources. In essence, he has failed to support his conclusion exegetically. Let the reader judge between my posts and his accordingly.

 

[Josheb]

....we have a security that is based on his ability and will, rather than our own.

That is TULIP's "P" in a nutshell.