“King’s to You, Fernand"
Table of Contents
”Accepting James White’s Challenge to Provide an Exegesis of 1 John 5:1"
The following is Dr. David W. Allen's refutation to internet reformed apologist James R. White's butchering of 1 John 5:1 for the purpose of forcing his calvinistic misreading into it.
James White has issued once again one of his elementary school playground challenges.
Since I am on the road this week and this weekend, I will only be able to respond briefly.
But there isreally no need for me to respond, as a full-throated rebuttal of White’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1 was given nine years ago by Dr. Brian Abasciano, the noted Greek and New Testament scholar.1
To my knowledge, White has never responded to this detailed and devastating critique of his pseudo-scholarship on 1 John 5:1.
Before reading further, the reader should immediately click the link in footnote 1 below and read carefully Abasciano’s critique of White’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1. It is exegetically thorough.
Here are some teasers:
[H]e [White] said that when we have a present participle with a perfect finite verb, we are able to determine the relationship of the respective actions to one another. But that is not necessarily true, and it does not come from the grammar. There are general tendencies that can be assumed (and the perfect indicative preceding the present participle is not one of them), but in any particular case, context would have to determine the relationship, and often it might not be clear.
White said, presumably of the basic tendency of Greek grammar, that the perfect indicative is either concurrent or antecedent to the present participle. But that is false. As I documented in my Evangelical Quarterly article on 1 John 5:1 (“Does Regeneration Precede Faith? The Use of 1 John 5:1 as a Proof Text,”Evangelical Quarterly 84.4 [2012]:307–22), the tendency of Greek grammar is for the participle to be concurrent or to precede the action of the indicative (though there are varying views among grammarians, which my article lays out, none of them favorable to White’s position). The present participle is especially a candidate for preceding when it is articular, as in 1 John 5:1. There is no particular tendency for the perfect indicative to precede the present participle.
White reads from Daniel B. Wallace’s distinguished Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics around the 1:02:30 mark, but shows further misunderstanding of the grammar Wallace discusses. First, he makes an odd statement that with a perfect verb, one has to include its time relationship to the (presumably present) participle in translation to avoid serious confusion. However, this is just not so. Indeed, the very passage we are discussing and the parallels to it that White brings up are translated by virtually all translations without indication of the time relationship between the participle and the perfect indicative.
Second, Wallace states that the present participle “can be broadly antecedent to the time of the main verb, especially if it is articular (and thus adjectival; cf. Mark 6:14; Eph. 2:131 John 5:1 is articular, but then says that it is not really adjectival. But it is a point of basic Greek grammar that substantival participles are adjectival (see e.g., Wallace, 616; William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [3rd ed.], 272–73).
Third, White reads the portion of Wallace’s grammar where he states that “the present participle is occasionally subsequent in a sense to the time of the main verb” (626; emphasis original), and White comments that this is what we have here [in 1 John 5:1].However, the very next sentence White reads disqualifies that occasional possibility as applying to 1 John 5:1: “This is so when the participle has a telic (purpose) or result flavor to it (cf. Eph 2:15).” 1 John 5:1 does not contain an instance of the participle with a telic or result flavor to it. White also fails to read the next sentence, which further shuts down the possibility of the present participle being used of subsequent time: “But as Robertson points out, ‘It is not strictly true that here [in the topic of present participle usage] the present participle means future or subsequent time. It is only that the purpose goes on coincident with the verb and beyond.’”
And there is more...much more in Abasciano’s presentation.
In addition to Abasciano’s rebuttal, I will add my own summary evaluation and critique ofWhite’s position based on grammatical, syntactical, semantic, and contextual grounds.
See also my 2014 article,2 which one should read if possible before rereading my summary comments below.
White’s Basic Argument
James White argues that, in 1 John 5:1 (“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”), the perfect tense of γεγέννηται (“has been born”) demonstrates that being born of God precedes the present act of believing (ὁπιστεύων).His reasoning:
- γεγέννητα ι(perfect tense) refers to an action completed before the time of the main verb.
- ὁπιστεύων(present participle) expresses the ongoing act of believing.
- Therefore, the new birth (regeneration) must occur before belief, making faith the result, not the cause, of regeneration.
White thus treats this verse as grammatical proof that regeneration logically and temporally precedes faith.However, the core issue is whether the grammar of 1 John 5:1 actually supports his temporal inference. The exegetical evidence suggests it does not.
The Perfect Tense Does Not Necessarily Imply Temporal Priority
White assumes that because γεγέννηται is perfect, it must denote an action completed before believing. But in Koine Greek, the perfect tense primarily conveys a present state resulting from a completed action, not necessarily the temporal order of two actions in the sentence. The perfect describes resulting condition, not temporal sequence. Thus, “has been born of God” identifies the believer’s present condition (“is in the state of having been born of God,”i.e., regenerated) rather than asserting that the new birth happened before believing.
This is especially important because the participle ὁπιστεύων is substantival—describing a class of persons—not a temporal participle modifying γεγέννηται.This is a basic point of Greek grammar and syntax—a point that islost on White.'
2. Johannine Usage Shows Descriptive (Not Sequential) Force
White’s argument becomes problematic when applied consistently to John’s other uses of the same structure in 1 John 2:29; 4:7; and 5:4.In all these cases, John uses the same πᾶς ὁ + participle + γεγέννηται formula to identify those who are born of God by their characteristics (doing righteousness, loving, believing), not to lay out a chronology.Thus, isolating 1 John 5:1 as an example of temporal sequence is inconsistent with John’s usage elsewhere.
3. Logical vs. Temporal Relationship
White reads the verse temporally (“regeneration causes faith”), but the structure is qualitative and logical:
- John’s point: “Everyone who believes shows himself to be born of God.”
- Faith is the evidence or mark of new birth, not a subsequent effect in a time sequence.
- The syntax and semantics mark identity, not order. Grammatically, there is no indication that one happens before the other in time.
- Neither the logical order nor the chronological order is in focus in this verse.
There has been much work done on verb and verbal tense and aspect in recent years, including the groundbreaking work of Buist Fanning and Stanley Porter. It is now understood that simplistic temporal sequences such as White attempts to find in 1 John 5:1 (and mandate as the only way to interpret the text)are no longer necessarily valid.
4 . Semantic Structural Analysis
As linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate with respect to 1 John 5:1, the semantic structure of the two propositions: (1) if anyone believes that Jesus is God’s anointed One, and (2) he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually, i. e., be regenerated, is one of condition/consequence.3 The condition (faith) precedes the consequence (regeneration).This is the natural way to interpret the verse.
5. Contextual Considerations
John’s theological emphasis throughout his writings is that believing leads to (precedes) life:
- John 20:31: “These are written so that you may believe... and that believing you may have life in His name.”
- John 1:12–13: Those who receive and believe are given the right to become children ofGod—implying faith as the condition for regeneration.
- If White’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1 was pressed as a universal Johannine pattern, it would contradict these passages which present faith as the means to life, not its consequence.
6. Linguistic Overreach
White’s reading imposes a strict and necessary temporal sequence onto a construction that simply does not carry that nuance in Koine Greek. Even many Calvinistic Greek scholars (e.g., A.T. Robertson, Daniel Wallace, and Constantine Campbell) acknowledge that 1 John 5:1 cannot be used decisively to prove regeneration precedes faith because the grammar is descriptive, not temporal.
Constantine Campbell said it well:
the attempts to argue a logical or temporal sequence in this text “miss John’s point, however, which is evidential. Belief that Jesus is the Christ is evidence of rebirth, and that is the important point for John since proper belief in Jesus is what demarcates those who belong to God and those who do not. John’s concern is not to establish a theological ordo salutis that posits regeneration prior to faith.”4
Gary Derickson explains further:
On one hand it is correct to say that those who have faith in Jesus are “born of” God.However, this need not indicate that faith is the sign or evidence of spiritual birth (contraAkin, 189; Kistemaker, 347; Westcott, 176). Rather, it should still be seen as the cause of that birth (Kruse, 171). The condition for being born of God is faith in Jesus. Only those who believe in Him are children of God by spiritual birth. Spiritual birth does not precede faith in Christ, but faith in Christ precedes spiritual birth. Those who believe faith is a fruit of regeneration rather than its predecessor miss the point of such passages as Eph 1:13. There Paul indicates with aorist participles that the Ephesians’ faith in Jesus preceded their sealing by the Holy Spirit. Prior to being sealed a person cannot be regenerate, because Paul clearly affirms in Rom 8:9 that one does not belong to Christ without the presence of the Holy Spirit within him. Being elect does not make someone automatically regenerate or a child of God either. In Eph 2:1–10 Paul describes the elect Ephesians as being “dead” in sin and “children of wrath” before faith in Christ. In the same way with John, spiritual birth is a work of God in response to belief in Jesus. Until one is regenerate, he or she is nota child of God.5
Conclusion
James White’s argument is exegetically weak if judged strictly by the grammar, syntax, and semantics of 1 John 5:1. The verse does not teach that regeneration temporally or logically precedes faith; rather, it identifies believers as those who are characterized by regeneration. John’s purpose is descriptive, not causal or chronological. Hence, White’s use of this text as a proof for regeneration preceding faith is grammatically and contextually overstated.
“King’s to you, Fernand!”
1 Brian Abasciano, “A Reply to James White on 1 John 5:1 and the Order of Faith and Regeneration,” Society of Evangelical Arminians, May 5, 2016, https://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-a-reply-to-james-white-on-1-john-51-and-the-order-of-faith-and-regeneration/.
2 David L. Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 11.2 (Fall2014): 34–52, https://www.nobts.edu/baptist-center-theology/journals/journals/JBTM_11-2_Fall_2014.pdf.
3 Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy, A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 91.
4 Constantine Campbell,1, 2 & 3 John, in The Story of God Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and Scot McKnight (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 154.
5 Gary W. Derickson,1, 2 & 3 John, EEC (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 490–91.
Answering Islam – Sam Shamoun Theology Newsletter
Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.
