Featured Syntax of 1 John 5:1 as a proof for monergism

This is an excellent book to add to your library. I don't have time to give more context right now.

Look again. The prepositional phrase here is with ek, and since when does ek indicate agency? In this verse, you do not have the dative, or upo, or en, which are used for agency. (See Black, p. 94--same page.)

My personal view is that in indicative forms time is in play, but not in infinitives or participles. But what point are you making concerning 1 John 5:1? How does this post relate to your OP?

Please give me a NT example or a quote from a grammar about how a substantival participle acting as the subject of a sentence becomes the result of a passive verb.

 

I'm giving a Greek test right now, so have some free time as the students suffer through it. Biggrin

Again, this does not deal with the grammar of the participle. I fully agree that regeneration is from God. That does not prove that faith is caused by the regeneration or even subsequent to it in 1 John 5:1.

No, I don't see that. There is no cause and effect between a perfect active indicative and a substantival participle acting as the subject. Period.

Okay, if you won't take the esteemed Dr. Black (oh, the irony! ; I'll look for the context of my quote after class), let me give you some other quotes to the effect that the substantival participle derives its time from the main verb.

"Though the tense of the participle never conveys an independent expression of time, yet its relation to its context usually involves a temporal significance. That is, the time relations of the participle do not belong to its tense, but to the sense of the context" (A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, Dana and Mantey, 229-230).

"(a) Timelessness of the Participle. It may be said at once that the participle has tense in the same sense that the subjunctive, optative and imperative have, giving the state of the action as punctiliar, linear, completed. In the beginning this was all that tense meant in the participle. The participle was timeless. Indeed the participle in itself continued timeless, as is well shown by the articular participle. Thus in Mk. 6:14, VIwa,nhj o` bapti,zwn, it is not present time that is here given by this tense, but the general description of John as the Baptizer without regard to time. It is actually used of him after his death." (A. T. Robertson, accessed through BibleWorks.)

Again, the syntax in those verses does not say that. I interpret it as saying that righteousness and loving are signs that regeneration has occurred. To make your point you must find grammar where the perfect tense is causative of a substantival participle which is the subject of the sentence.

I believe I pointed out that in 2 Tim. 2:23 gennaw is causative of quarrels, but "quarrels" is in the accusative. But you are trying to say that gennaw is causative to a participle in the nominative, are you not? How do you prove that without a Biblical example other than these in 1 John?

Go for it.

 

Here is an example where the perfect tense is definitely not causative of a substantival participle:

John 18:37--"To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth."

BYZ John 18:37 Ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι, καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ.

Analysis: The perfect passive indicative did not cause Jesus to bear witness grammatically by itself, but it took εἰς τοῦτο to show that. Furthermore, the purpose of “having been born” is indicated by εἰς τοῦτο, but 1 John 5:1 does not have this phrase.

And by the way, gennaw occurs 21 times in John's writings, but not one single usage has a meaning other than to bear life. There are no usages which mean to produce anything other than a child. As I've already pointed out, the figurative usage of producing strife does occur in 2 Tim. 2:23 with the accusative, but no one has addressed that yet. If 1 John 5:1 is meant to show gennaw as producing faith, why is it in the nominative and not the accusative?

 

Um, no. Example: speaking English with an American accent may be a sign that I'm an American, but it does not follow that being an American causes me to speak with an American accent, since many Americans speak with other accents.

Then you need to go back and change your OP, and we will then discuss the semantics of the passage rather than the syntax. Concerning the semantics, note what I just posted about gennaw in John.

Concerning my post proving your position, I don't see that. I have not agreed about causality. Let me put it this way. I know an evangelist who deals with people doubting their salvation by questioning them about their view of salvation. If they understand completely what salvation is, he believes that means they are saved. I agree. The understanding of salvation is not caused by regeneration, but simply a sign that it has occurred.

So here is my main point. If the semantics of the word gennao imply a sequence of time or logic (depending on the context), then causation is part of the text. Where the grammar and syntax comes in is that you have identical phrasing in 1 John 2:29 & 4:7 as you do in 5:1. If you have love and righteousness as a result of being born by God (as you implied), then the same would be true of "believing" in 5:1 here the same exact grammatical and syntactical structure is present.

Once more, I'm not saying that the grammar and syntax demands causation. I am saying (1) that the meaning of gennao implies it and (2) the grammatical and syntactical structures of 2:29 and 4:7 are identical to 5:1. If 2:29 and 4:7 say that spiritual birth causes the action of the participle, the same would be true in 5:1.

Therefore, 1 John 5:1 teaches (whether John's point or just assumed in his discussion) that regeneration is the causative factor in each person who believes.

 

Here is the quote again with the whole paragraph. Other than that I don't think more context will help you.

"A participle with its complement may be used to modify the action of the head verb. The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb; a future participle generally indicates an action following that of the head verb. However, tense must be inferred from the context, and often a variety of interpretations are possible. Likewise, the significance of the participial clause is determined by its relation to the head verb and the context" (David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113; emphasis in the original). This is followed by several examples.

Therefore, once again, in 1 John 5:1 the substantival participle (believing ones) and the main verb (have been born) are happening at the same time, and the main verb did not cause the substantival participle.

 

I think this quote is completely applicable. I've asked several times for you to give sources that say what you are trying to say, that belief in 1 John 5:1 is subsequent to regeneration. No offense, but you have not given any grammar sources in the whole thread.

I've asked if the believing is caused by regeneration, why is the participle in the nominative. You've not answered. I gave the sole NT use where gennaw is indisputably causative but the noun is accusative, and you never commented.

I've pointed out how there is not a koine word "believer" so that the substantival participle is used for that. This means the nominative participle is simply the subject of the sentence, and as such exists at the same time as the main verb. You've not answered that.

Honestly, I feel I've proved my position but you have not proved yours.

 

It isn't.

Yes, the subject receives the action of the verb. That does not mean in this case that the verb caused the subject to be what it is any more than if it were a ball hit by a bat. The bat did not cause the ball, but acted upon it.

No, the quote is about participial clauses in general, not strictly adverbial clauses. Buy the book!

Yes, I have addressed the semantics of gennaw, over and over. You have ignored my clear example of gennaw used figuratively meaning "to cause."

Are kidding me? Of course it indicates causation, but only of life. For crying out loud, it means "to be born." Check your lexicons. I've quoted Friberg, you've quoted none. Correction: I just realized I quoted Gingrich from BibleWorks, thinking it was Friberg.

But here's Friberg:
"genna,w fut. gennh,sw; 1aor. evge,nnhsa; pf. gege,nnhka; pf. pass. gege,nnhmai; 1aor. pass. evgennh,qhn; (1) literally; (a) of men father, become the father of (MT 1.2); (b) of women bear, give birth to (LU 1.13); (c) passive, of both men and women be born (of) (GA 4.23); (2) figuratively; (a) of God's part in Jesus' resurrection (AC 13.33) and his messianic exaltation to the position of highest honor (HE 1.5) (officially) become father of, publicly acknowledge; (b) passive, of the spiritual new birth be born, be regenerated (JN 3.3); (c) of the influence of a leader on his disciples become a father of (1C 4.15); (d) as producing a result give rise to, cause (2T 2.23)"

So Friberg agrees that only figuratively does it mean "cause."

Oh, come now, this is a completely different syntax from 1 John 5:1. And the meaning is "born of God," not "born so it caused...."

I totally agree that being regenerated changes a person. I do not agree that gennaw means "to cause." In all of these passages it means "to be born."

It is causation in the sense that we have been changed when we are regenerated, not that the word gennaw means "to cause." And again, this is a different structure that 1 John 5:1.

Forgive me, but I'm not interested in Schreiner's take. He's a Calvinist, so it just means he's on your side. I'm not a Calvinist, am secure in my theology, have no need to discuss it with anyone. This is the first time I've gotten on the resurrected Cal/Arm forum, and maybe the last. I got on this thread for a good discussion of the Greek, and I think we've had that, so I thank you for that.

God bless.

 

Aha! I kept thinking in the mists of my memory that there was another source concerning the present substantival participle following the time of the main verb. I remember learning this very early on, and sure enough, it is in Machen's NT Greek for Beginners, p. 109--

"Here the Greek uses the present participle because the time of the action denoted by the partciple is the same as that of the action denoted by the leading verb, even though the action denoted by the leading verb here happens to be in past time."

So again, when there is a present tense substantival participle acting as the subject of the sentence, it follows the time of the main verb--not after it, not before it, but with it.

 

I have to say that I am astounded at the amount of Greek knowledge on here. Kudos to you, Brothers GT, JoJ, and TC.


Now, are there any online courses that can be had to help me learn Greek?

 

Why would you need to actually study Greek? There are several guys on the Bible translation forum with no Biblical language training whatsoever, who don't even know a foreign language, who pontificate all the time with great authority. And H. D. Williams of the Dean Burgon Society until lately, even wrote a book about how to translate the Bible with no Greek or Hebrew training whatsoever! Roflmao

 

Of course it would be better to get a Bachelor's in Biblical studies from LBU first.
You would get knowledge of the basic Biblical languages.
BACHELOR OF ARTS IN BIBLICAL STUDIES
Four Year Program – Bible & Theology Concentration
Recommended for the student that is interested in more Bible and theological
study; especially as preparation toward a master’s degree in Biblical Studies or
Divinity.
Area
Semester Hours
General Education Requirements ..................................................................32
Orientation .......................................................................2
English ............................................................................12
English Composition I .................. (3)
English Composition II .................. (3)
American Literature ....................... (3)
English Literature/Speech ............. (3)
History .............................................................................6
U.S. History I ................................. (3)
U.S. History II ............................... (3)
Math/Science ...................................................................6
Social Studies ...................................................................6
Bible Requirements .........................................................................................30
Old Testament Survey ................... (3)
New Testament Survey ................. (3)
Personal Evangelism ...................... (3)
The Four Gospels ........................... (3)
The Text Behind Your Bible ......... (3)
Apologetics ..................................... (3)
Acts of the Apostles ........................ (3)
Introduction to the Revelation ...... (3)
Hermeneutics ................................. (3)
Introduction to Missions................ (3)
Bible & Theology Concentration Requirements ..........................................24
Applied Research Project ............................ (3)
Theology/Bibliology ..................................... (3)
Christology/Pneumatology .......................... (3)
Antropology/Hamartiology ......................... (3)
Ecclesiology/Soteriology .............................. (3)
Angelology/Eschatology .............................. (3)
Introduction to Biblical Languages ............. (3)
Historical Books ........................................... (3)
Graduation Workshop .....................................................................................3
Electives ..........................................................................................................39
TOTAL
128

 

https://billmounce.com/greek