As I said, the Greek present tense in regard to "believing" in the verse we are discussing only speaks of a believing which is on going.
As apposed to what other kind of believing, Jerry?
In 1 John 5, "believing" is indeed in the present tense, but what you either fail to see or refuse to see is that the tense of "believing" is irrelevant to the point I am making. "believing could have been the Aorist tense and my point would still be valid because the antecedent nature of the participle has nothing to do with the tense of the main verb, it has to do
with the tense of the participle.
Perhaps you can understand the following:
"
THE VERBAL SIDE OF THE PARTICIPLE
a. Time
The time of the participle's verbal nature requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, the tenses behave just as they do in the indicative. The only difference is that now the point of reference is the controlling verb, not the speaker. Thus, time in participles is relative (or dependent), while in the indicative it is absolute (or independent).
Chart 80Time in Participles
The aorist participle, for example, usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb.1 But if the main verb is also aorist, this participle may indicate contemporaneous time.2 The perfect participle also indicates antecedent time. The present participle is used for contemporaneous time. (This contemporaneity, however, is often quite broadly conceived, depending in particular on the tense of the main verb.) The futureparticiple denotes subsequent time.3
(Dan Wallace, https://bible.org/article/participle)
Lets start here. Do you understand what Dan Wallace is saying here? If so, are you in agreement with what he says? If not, on what scholarly basis do you dissent?
Jerry said:
What you are saying is that the participle places being "born again" prior to when a person first begins to believe.
Yes, because "born again" is a perfect participle and "believing" is the controlling verb.
Read Dan Wallace above and then apply his conclusions to 1 John 5.
Jerry said:
But since the verse says nothing about when the believing begins then what you say is in error.
Wrong.
It doesn't say when the believing begins because John pretty well understands that the question of when is different for everyone. I'd bet you and I didn't start believing at the same time. John, the evangelist, started believing long before you and I were born.
It doesn't matter what date on a calendar one starts believing, what does matter is that the
perfect tense of the participle means that the action of the participle is
completed prior to the action of the main verb.
This means that the action of being "born again" is completed prior to the action of the main verb and that main verb is a present tense verb.
Jerry said:
Also, you failed to address what I said here about the Greek word
hina found in these two places here:
"But these are written, that (hina) ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that (hina) believing[/B] ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).
The Greek word
hina means
"to the intent that; to the end that, in order that" (
Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
Yes, this is what hina means. So what?
Why are you drawing false conclusions?
We can easily see that X may happen in order that Y may happen and yet the X is not necessarily temporally prior to Y.
I've already given you the example of breathing. We breath (X) in order to live (Y). But everyone knows that a fetus lives 9 whole months before breathing.
Would you like more examples?
I put another log on the fire (X) in order that (Y) the fire would burn.
According to your ideas, there couldn't be a fire prior to my putting a log on the fire. But that doesn't make any sense because one can't put a log on a fire
if there is no fire.
Here's another example:
The surgeon surgically implanted a pacemaker (X) in order that (Y) the patient would live.
According to your ideas, there is absolutely no way that the patient was alive prior to the implantation of the pacemaker, but that's ridiculous because no surgeon implants a pacemaker into a cadaver.
Here's yet another example:
This time from the clause right before the one you think makes your point.
Jerry said:
In the first instance we see that these words are written "in order that" ye might believe.
So according to your ideas, there could be no believers who read John's words right?
That's peculiar because I recommend the gospel of John to new believers all the time. I even led a bible study where a group of 12 believing men read through the gospel of John. According to your ideas, its impossible that any of these men were saved because, according to your ideas, no one can believe prior to reading John's words.
You and I both know that this is spurious.
Its not even logical to assume that the ancient recipients of John's gospel were all lost. In fact, the following note from the NET bible is quite pertinent:
3 )sn John 20:31. A major question concerning this verse, the purpose statement of the Gospel of John, is whether the author is writing primarily for an audience of unbelievers, with purely evangelistic emphasis, or whether he envisions an audience of believers, whom he wants to strengthen in their faith. Several points are important in this discussion: (1) in the immediate context (20:30), the other signs spoken of by the author were performed in the presence of disciples; (2) in the case of the first of the signs, at Cana, the author makes a point of the effect the miracle had on the disciples (2:11 ); (3) if the primary thrust of the Gospel is toward unbelievers, it is difficult to see why so much material in chaps. 13–17 (the last meal and Farewell Discourse, concluding with Jesus' prayer for the disciples), which deals almost exclusively with the disciples, is included; (4) the disciples themselves were repeatedly said to have believed in Jesus throughout the Gospel, beginning with 2:11, yet they still needed to believe after the resurrection (if Thomas' experience in 20:27–28 is any indication); and (5) the Gospel appears to be written with the assumption that the readers are familiar with the basic story (or perhaps with one or more of the synoptic gospel accounts, although this is less clear). Thus no account of the birth of Jesus is given at all, and although he is identified as being from Nazareth, the words of the Pharisees and chief priests to Nicodemus (7:52) are almost certainly to be taken as ironic, assuming the reader knows where Jesus was really from. Likewise, when Mary is identified in 11:2 as the one who anointed Jesus' feet with oil, it is apparently assumed that the readers are familiar with the story, since the incident involved is not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel until 12:3. These observations must be set over against the clear statement of purpose in the present verse, 20:31, which seems to have significant evangelistic emphasis. In addition to this there is the repeated emphasis on witness throughout the Fourth Gospel (cf. the witness of John the Baptist in 1:7, 8, 15, 32, and 34, along with 5:33; the Samaritan woman in 4:39; Jesus' own witness, along with that of the Father who sent him, in 8:14, 18, and 18:37; the disciples themselves in 15:27; and finally the testimony of the author himself in 19:35 and 21:24). In light of all this evidence it seems best to say that the author wrote with a dual purpose: (1) to witness to unbelievers concerning Jesus, in order that they come to believe in him and have eternal life; and (2) to strengthen the faith of believers, by deepening and expanding their understanding of who Jesus is. (NET Bible, study notes, Bold Emphasis added by me)
According to your ideas, no one who read John's account of Jesus' miracles could have been a believer because, according to your ideas, hina means that X always temporally precedes Y.
In this instance, John's writing (X) were in order that - hina - (Y) you (John's audience) may believe.
So, according to your ideas, no one who received John's gospel could have been a believer.
I think you can see how ridiculous that is even without the very clear evidence presented by the NET study bible above.
