by Angus Harley

Very recently, I was in a discussion with an Arminian woman. She was highly dismissive of Calvinism; even had her own Arminian FB page, I do believe. She was sure she had the right exegesis of John 3:1-8 and its teaching on sinners being “born from above”. I patiently read her posts, responding to her each time from the text, constantly asking her to show from John 3:1-8 how faith and free will are part of God’s act of birth from above. It goes without saying that she invariably stepped outside of John 3:1-8 to argue that this passage does imply faith and free will. My counter-response was, why does Jesus use two powerful images of man’s total passivity to explain the act of birth from above? First, why does he call this act a birth? And second, why does he compare the Spirit’s action to wind that blows where it wills, makes a noise, and leaves to we know not where? Total passivity! Eventually, she slapped down the rule that nowhere in the NT does ‘regeneration’ precede faith.

I will not look at the term ‘regeneration’, but I will follow through on John’s understanding of the divine birth and the use of the word gennaō (‘to be born’), but this time from 1 John, for variety’s sake. In doing so, we will look at the Calvinistic vs Arminian debate, especially as it hones in on 1 John 5:1. Specifically, I respond to the celebrated Greek scholar Constantine R. Campbell- up there with the likes of Daniel Wallace. Of course, I am not engaging with him on the level of sheer grammar, but in the realm of where ‘the rubber hits the road’, namely, exegesis and theology. For it is his commentary on 1 John that I primarily interact with, although I do have some things to say, from a Greek layman’s point of view, about his understanding of Greek tenses, but even then, my comments are tied into his commentary and to 1 John.

Constantine R. Campbell

Campbell writes of 1 John 5:1a:

“While some argue that the verb tenses of “believes” (ho pisteuōn) and “is born” (gegennētai) in 5:1a indicate that being born of God (i.e., regeneration) logically precedes faith, others argue against taking the verbs in this way. Both positions 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. That does not mean that this verse opposes that theological position, but it is not what John has in view.”[1]

Here, Campbell is studiously avoiding any notion of an ordo salutis in the use of gegennētai, and thereby carefully avoiding the label ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Arminian’. John’s sole concern in using the perfect tense[2] gegennētai  in 5:1 is how certain godly fruits are evidence of the current living force of the divine birth in the Christian. It is an ‘evidential’ argument, in other words.

Now, without any further comment by Campbell, we could take this to mean that these evidences are merely indicating the presence of a divine birth. This in itself would not tell us what came first: faith/godliness or the divine birth, as it could be that one ‘proves’ the other, and that to have one is to have the other. Which is a truism.

One might think, then, that Campbell would leave matters there in a kind of neutral grammatical-theological no-man’s land, without endorsing a theological position, but he does not:

“It refers to spiritual rebirth instigated by God through the Spirit, bringing about a dramatic new life. This new life is oriented toward God in Christ, leaving behind the old life with its allegiance to the world, the flesh, and the devil. According to 1 John, being born of God depends on believing that Jesus is the Christ (5:1). It produces love for fellow believers (4:7), and it enables them to overcome the world (5:4) and the life of sin (5:18).”[3]  [bold text is mine]

“Such love is produced by genuine faith, which makes believers children of God, and is therefore “the victory that has overcome the world” (5:4b). In other words, the faith of believers is what overcomes the world, and it produces love, which distinguishes believers from the world. As overcomers, those born of God are able to love as the Father loves. All of this means that we are able to keep God’s commandments, which require love.”[4]  [bold text mine]

“Our faith in Jesus brings about our new birth into God’s family, and we are growing up into the family likeness like infants learning to walk.”[5] [bold text mine]

It would appear, then, that for Campbell, although the perfect tense gegennētai  in 5:1 does not in itself, grammatically, convey an ordo salutis, the theological concept of divine birth as related in 5:1 entails that faith precedes the new birth.

Some exegetical observations

What follows are some responses to Campbell.

Lack of exegetical evidence

As Campbell is against arguing for an order of salvation tied to the grammatical sense of gegennētai in 5:1, we are left to expect exegetical evidence from his pen. It was with great disappointment that after scouring his commentary, I could not find any exegetical evidence defending his theological position. It seems he merely assumes that faith gives rise to the new birth.

John’s use of gennaō in 1 John

Below are the ten times that the verb gennaō (‘to be born’) is used in 1 John. I’ve put in bold text each of those times for the reader’s convenience, and to highlight the ESV’s translation of the five perfect-indicatives (gegennētai) as “has been born”, and not as “is born”:

2:29: “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.” (x1)

3:9: “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.” (x2)

4:7, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” (x1)

5:1: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father[6] loves whoever has been born of him.” (x3)

5:4: “For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.” (x1)

5:18: “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.” (x2)

Fruits of the divine birth, not mere evidence

From the above information, we can create a list of the fruits of the divine birth in relation to the believer:

  • you know that he is righteous
  • you practice righteousness
  • you do not practice sinning
  • you cannot keep on sinning
  • you love others
  • you love
  • you know God
  • you believe Jesus is the Christ
  • you overcome the world
  • you overcome the world by faith
  • you don’t keep sinning
  • you are protected by God
  • the evil one cannot touch you

None of these fruits are possibilities, or potential actions; they are inevitable, expected, and certain, the only true manifestations of the internal, divine birth. All of this demonstrates that faith, righteousness, etc., are the result of the divine birth. That is why I use “fruits” to avoid Campbell’s evidential argument. All the above godly behaviors are caused by the presence of the divine birth. They do not merely ‘witness’ to one another, as if one is merely evidence of the other, faith merely evidence of divine birth, or vice versa.

Present-participle argument

Four times in 1 John the present-participle phrase is directly tied to the perfect/indicative gegennētai (“has been born”). The present-participle phrase is in bold.

1 John 5:1a

Pas ho pisteuōn hoti ‘Isous estin ho Christos ek tou theou gegennētai

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God

1 John 2:29

pas ho poiōn tēn dikaiosunēn ek autou gegennētai

Everyone who does righteousness has been born of him

1 John 4:7

pas ho agapōn ek tou theou gegennētai

Everyone who loves has been born of God

And we can add 1 John 5:1b, which, although it does not use the perfect indicative gegennētai, conveys the same general concept:

1 John 5:1b

Pas ho agapōn ton gennēsanta agapa kai ton gegennēmenon ex auto

Everyone who loves the Begetter loves those having been begotten by him

The various grammatical parallels are undeniably strong, even as between 5:1a and 5:1b. As to 2:29, Campbell considers this to teach merely that righteousness is the way to identify someone who is born of God.[7] In regard to 4:7, Campbell states that God is the source of love. However, Campbell does not follow through on this in relation to the divine birth, choosing, instead, to say that love is part of the “family likeness”, implying again Campbell’s evidential argument.[8]

It is entirely redundant, however, for John to directly connect both righteousness and love with the divine birth itself, if it is not their source. Campbell’s rendition effectively makes the Father above the source of faith, righteousness, etc., in some undefined, vague sense. Surely the Father is the source of love and righteousness precisely in the form that his love and righteousness are given in the divine birth itself. Is this not why the divine birth is always explained as from God? Is that not the point of 1 John 3:9, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God”? Even Campbell does not deflect in regard to 3:9, and teaches that due exclusively to the seed within the believer that the Christian cannot sin. He also notes the “organic relationship” between the seed and the divine birth. By being born of God, the seed, that is the Spirit of God, is within believers, says Campbell. Consequently, “Because the Spirit remains in believers, they are not able to continue sinning.”[9] I am not convinced that the Spirit is the seed, even so, Campbell’s general point is taken: the one begotten by God has the seed, and that seed alone ensures sinlessness in the believer’s actions. Now, if the divine seed and the divine birth are the proper source of sinlessness in and by the believer, surely both righteousness and love are, too. And if they are, so, too, is faith, if we follow through consistently upon John’s use of the present-participle phrases.

1 John’s order

There can be no doubt that, as far as logical extrapolations go, a godly life is proof of the divine birth in the believer. And even if John does use some kind of reversal logic, in which the lifestyle of the godly is evidence that they are born from God, John’s overall system is that divine life comes from the Father, is implanted within the believer in the new birth, and gives rise to the life of one born of God. John goes from the source, God, works to the resultant birth, and then goes on to its fruits.

In 1 John, the new birth gives rise to godly living. John puts this point emphatically in 3:9, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.” The status of being born of God inevitably gives rise to sinless practice, because the one born of God has the divine seed in him and cannot sin. John’s point is not merely that a sinless lifestyle proves the existence of the divine birth, but that the latter gives rise to the former.

Similarly, John refers to believers as children, as issuing from God directly, and then resulting in a status and knowledge, “See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him” (3:1). 1) We have been made children of God, 2) are called children of God, 3) and therefore we are children of God. Again, “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (3:10). There is a status that is made obvious by certain behavior; not: certain behavior proves a status, however logical that seems.

A similar sequence is seen in 2:3-6:

3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

John is effectively asking, who is the one who knows him? Status and relationship. Answer: the one who keeps his commandments. Not: the keeping of commandments is evidence of one being born of God, and of knowing him.

Similarly, 4:2-3 states:

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

The reality of the gift of the Spirit of God in the believer is, “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”. Not: every spirit that confesses that Jesus is the Christ is evidence of the new birth and the internal presence of the Spirit.

It is, in other words, John’s habit to depict the divine birth as coming from above and that man receives it. Is this not the point of John 3? It teaches that only after the divine birth from above, by the Spirit, does the believer enter into, and see, the kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5). The ‘lifestyle’ feature of entering and seeing the kingdom are at the end of a sequence of logic, not its beginning. The source and beginning are the all-crucial factors, surely. It is cause and effect, essentially. Flesh gives rise to flesh, and Spirit to spirit. After this Spirit-birth from above working in sinners- for the Spirit is sent by God- do results ensue, for the one who is born from above, and is now spirit, enters and sees the kingdom of God. Doesn’t the wind come from nowhere, make a noise, then disappear (John 3:8)? Isn’t the noise proof of the wind’s presence and work? Isn’t the Spirit’s work and presence revealed in the new birth? Jesus does not say, ‘There is a noise like a wind; it must indicate the wind.’ Nor does John 3:6 state, ‘flesh is evidence of Flesh’, ‘spirit evidence of Spirit’. Nor does Jesus walk us back from kingdom living to the creation of spirit in us by the Spirit. To repeat, the starting point of Jesus’/John’s ‘logic’ in John 3 is God above giving the new birth, through the Spirit, and a kingdom life then ensues. He does not begin with the ‘evidential’ starting point of the created spirit, nor with the believer entering the kingdom.  Never does John begin with the fact of the new birth in the believer’s life, in John 3, and work back from it to God and his Spirit. The order is always from heaven to man, unto kingdom living.

I can put my thesis more simply: the idea of being born of God in Campbell’s thesis- with the stress on God’s centrality and God as source- is reduced merely to being a B-movie actor. The Father as the source of new life, the transformative reality of the new birth, its ongoing virility and life, and so forth, sit passively, taking a back seat, whilst the so-called ‘evidences’ themselves grab the limelight!

The theological dilemma

Campbell’s reading faces a theological dilemma of huge proportions. If sinlessness is due exclusively to the presence of the divine seed, but faith is not, where does faith originate from? Campbell will perhaps argue, like the Arminian, that it comes from man. One cannot deny that any act of godliness ‘comes from man’, in the sense that he puts himself into doing these things, so that they are done by him. Yet, is it not valid, at least logically, to extrapolate from 3:9 that ‘I am sinless because I don’t sin’? Does that make me, personally, the ‘source’ of my sinlessness? Of course not! Arminianism’s view that faith is sourced in man is facile, lacking any depth as to the source. I do not know of any living Calvinist who would deny that faith ‘comes from’ a believer, for it is the believer who believes. What Calvinism asserts is that behind this act of faith is the true and proper source of the faith, God himself. Paul tells us in Philippians 2:13 how God works, “for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” Taken at face value, the force of this text is overwhelming for the Arminian superficial argument, for both willing and doing by the believer have their sole source in God’s work in them.

Coming back to sinlessness, surely faith is part of the sinlessness process. Isn’t that what John states, “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith” (see 5:5)? How much more sinless can one be than entirely triumphant over the evil world? If we use Campbell’s logic, faith is an alternative source of sinlessness in the believer! Yet, isn’t faith one of the crucial identifying markers of a child of God, along with love, in 1 John? Isn’t faith, therefore, the essence of “god-liness’? Where does this ‘god-likeness’ come from that is called ‘faith’ if it doesn’t come from God himself?

Now, if Campbell insists that faith in some manner– but other than what the Calvinist argues- does come from God, where in 1 John does it say this? And where in 1 John is faith given a separate divine source of existence? The exclusive source of divine life in 1 John is the new birth!

We can ask a different question of Campbell, what is the antithesis of faith in 1 John? It is ‘all of the above’, so to speak, meaning all of the dark, sin-laden, demonic, worldly practices and beliefs that John tells us to flee from. How does one go from being a rabid participant in that world and way of living, to a state where one enacts a ‘godly’ act of faith? According to Campbell, one cannot ‘make the switch’ by divine birth, for it comes after faith. Once more, this implies that Campbell’s position gives to man himself some innate ‘starter pack’ of spiritual life and godliness, whilst in a state of utter spiritual blackness, that does not require God’s divine intervention and divine life in us.

Which is an enormous irony, since Arminians belittle the Calvinistic reading because it puts life antecedent to “eternal life”. Maybe there is something to be said of that criticism. Even so, one thing is sure: the life that the sinner displays in the form of faith is issuing from a divinely implanted seed that gives life; this seed, akin to the sun, self-generates; it does not depend on any other source, for it is divine life in the sinner, due to God in us giving us life.

Faith and the internal testimony go hand-in-glove. In that regard, 5:10 is a fascinating text. It says, “The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.” If we take Campbell’s evidential system and apply it to this text, we are left with the conclusion that the external testimony of the believer that says he is the Son of God is mere evidence of the internal “testimony” in the believer. The one validates the other. Interestingly, Campbell chooses to interpret this text as saying that one “cannot believe truly in Jesus if God’s testimony is unacceptable to him or her.”[10] He says nothing about the internal nature of the testimony. Yet, the NASB properly translates echei tēn marturian en autōas, “he has the testimony in himself”. This is a word-witness or word-testimony, is it not? It is confessional. And, more pointedly, it is inside of him. Just like the divine birth, and just like the divine seed. Surely John, like James 1:18, is teaching that when God begets a Christian he implants the divine word into his heart, “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.” John’s point is not merely that the outward testimony coming from the lips of believers is evidence of an internal witness or testimony. Rather, the divine birth implants the divine seed and divine word-testimony in the heart of the sinner, bringing forth life, leading to a confession of faith. This is what Calvinists have called the effectual call of the Gospel.

The most fundamental question of all, in my opinion- one that I drew attention to in the intro- is, why on earth does John use the imagery of birth to convey an event that requires man’s active participation for it to be accomplished? Shouldn’t John have used some metaphor that allowed for man’s active interaction? Lest I be misunderstood: the divine Spirit in us does produce life- living, energetic, new-creation life. The Spirit’s work of new birth is ‘seen’, just as the wind is ‘heard’, in the full-on revelation of the sinner as a new-creation believer and lover. Jesus cried, “Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:34), and he, Lazarus, came forward. He ‘participated’; he ‘did’. But God was the source of all his participation and doing by his resurrection word in Lazarus bringing life. And that life was seen, that resurrection power revealed, by him rising from the dead. So, even faith, love, righteousness, and all the fruits, are subsumed under the new birth itself, being its very life in action, the going forth of the new creation. That’s our ‘participation’ and ‘doing’, but it all comes from God above, by his Spirit within, creating the internal testimony of the word, the new birth, the divine seed, all of which remain in us, and come forth with life.

It is rather perplexing, it has to be said, that John can expect so much fruit of Christians, so many ‘evidences’ from believers, yet according to Campbell, these evidences are not anchored in the new birth itself, but are merely accompanying proof. Does this not then entail that if the ‘proof’ diminishes, the new birth disappears too, and that the one born of God is then ‘unborn’ of him? But if we look at John’s epistle from the perspective of the infallible divine source who has planted relentless, indestructible, and immovable life in us, then the newly born one will inevitably live a life of faith, love, and righteousness, and these will confirm that he is born from above.

The perfect storm

Behind Campbell’s statement on 5:1 is a new view of the Greek perfect tense. Traditionally, and even to this very day, the perfect tense was taken to mean that a perfect tense verb conveyed a complete action in the past with ongoing effects, oftentimes into the present. Grammarians will tell you that very often in the NT, it is the present effect of that past, completed action that the NT focuses upon, not the past action itself. Campbell sees huge problems with this arrangement, given that various uses of the perfect indicative in the NT appear to be disassociated from any element of a completed action in the past. He cites Luke 1:18, “Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.” ” (The perfect indicative I have put in bold.) Campbell maintains that Luke is not indicating that Elizabeth was in the past advanced in years as a completed action, and this has ongoing effects into the present.[11] However, Campbell’s reading seems to me to be rather improbable, given that the text seems to imply a state or condition of old age that a woman ‘is in’, which originated back whenever. If I say ‘I am old-aged’, I am tying this status into a past, necessarily, for it implies I became old at one point. He gives another example, from Luke 14:18,, “ “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first one said to him, “I have bought a field, and I need to go out and see it. Please have me excused.” ” [all emphases are his] The speaker is asking for a request, so it is something not even achieved yet, says Campbell.[12] Why making a request would invalidate the traditional sense of the perfect-indicative is not clear to me. The man making the excuse requests, “ “Hold me excused”. ” Isn’t the implication of this that he wants to be held as one already excused, and therefore to be held excused in the present?

Let’s say Campbell is correct in his criticisms of the traditional reading. Does this mean that his own understanding of the perfect-indicative is accurate? He centers on the imperfective nature of the perfect-indicative and its heightened proximity. The former term, ‘imperfective’, simply means that this action is unfolding before our eyes, and the action is not spoken of as completed, merely as ongoing. The present tense, according to Campbell, is imperfective, too. However, the difference between the present tense and the perfect tense is that the perfect gives you a super-close look at the verb in action, drawing it really close to your attention, as it were.[13] This is the ‘heightened proximity’ feature. I have to say that I have struggled over the many long years to comprehend what precisely Campbell means by both these phrases. So, it was with anticipation that I read his commentary on 1 John, thoroughly expecting for his model to be fully fleshed out. Except, it wasn’t! Stuck away in a footnote, or said quickly in a brief comment, is the ‘fact’ of the perfect-indicative not being the old view, but plainly it is ‘imperfective’ and a case of ‘heightened proximity’!

I, personally, can merely ‘spitulate’ as to Campbell’s meaning concerning the nature of the perfect tense and its relevance to 1 John, but that is all. Many centuries ago, before Campbell existed, the KJV translated 1 John’s four uses of gegennētai (perfect/indicative/active/passive) in the same way as Campbell to represent a present reality, “is born” (2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1). Perhaps all Campbell has in mind is that fact that the believer ‘is born-again’, to use different wording, that he has that status. Maybe this was what the KJV was going for, as well. However, Campbell’s overall view of the perfect tense most likely takes us to another level yet, in that he wants to draw our attention to the ongoing reality of the divine birth as evidenced by those many forms of godliness. John is not interested in the mere fact, or status, of being ‘born again’, but on its living existence. And inasmuch as something has a present aspect to it, it is ongoing. Just as ‘being’ and ‘in the moment’ are ongoing, and not, ‘technically’ complete, so this divine birth ‘is’ doing its thing, ongoing. I certainly have no objection to these ideas, if indeed I have correctly understood Campbell.

Yet, there are features of 1 John’s content that prompt questions regarding Campbell’s thesis. The reader’s mind will no doubt have meandered down the road of the past sense in which we were born of God. It is certain that both the KJV translators and Campbell believe that the divine birth happened when we first came to Christ. It was an event in the past. However, it has current relevance. We were ‘born again’ once for all; we are ‘born again’ in the present and forever. The present tense ‘are born again’ does not mean born over and over and over, but that we are in the condition of those having been born again. But that’s the point: we are because we were. If I am an American, it is because I became an American at one point. Any form of the present is based on the past. And if I focus on the present alone, I nonetheless cannot, for the life of me, avoid the past in a logical sense. Maybe the perfect tense has this logic built into it. Maybe it does not. Certainly, the idea of being born does. And there’s that imagery again! It just happens to be that one can be born from above only once, and that this birth and its value carries on into the present, not the birthing process, but the results. That being so, the concept of being born of God fits very nicely the traditional model of the perfect tense, so that, as with KJV, it might be highlighting merely the present value of that birth, yet this implies its past completion.

Even then, why must the perfect gegennētai be translated to mean “is born of God”? Why can it not refer to the past as the ESV conveys? Why can’t the past be the basis for the present, grammatically speaking?  Why can’t the perfect participle of 1 John 3:9, gegennēmenos, indicate “everyone who has been born”? Doesn’t a perfect participle indicate time antecedent to the main verb?[14] The main verb, here, is “practices” sin, present tense. So, the event of having been born, in 1 John, is before the act of practicing, or not practicing, sin.[15] Isn’t John 3:6 clear evidence of the perfect participle used twice as an antecedent cause of present effects: to gegennēmenon ek tēs sarkos, sarx estin; kai to gegennēmenon ek tou Pneumatos, pneuma estin (“That one having been born of the flesh, is flesh; and that one having been born of the Spirit, is sprit”)? Is that not, too, the point of the cause-and-effect principle evident in same perfect participle in John 3:8, for it conveys an order: wind makes a noise and leaves; Spirit creates new life and goes about his business? From above to below, from God to man. I think it fair in the light of these things to ask why it is that John never use the present participle of gennaō to convey the divine birth.

Some closing remarks

It seems pretty obvious that Campbell’s exegesis of the ‘born’ passages in 1 John has pinned its hopes on Arminian theology, even though he would not like the label. To his credit, he does not espouse a specifically grammatical argument to that end. Nonetheless, his grammatical comments, especially due to his view of the perfect tense, just happen to lend strong support to his Arminian-like perspective on the divine birth. I think this leaves  him open to the question of whether his grammar is unduly influenced by an external theology.

Perhaps I am missing something obvious from his writings, and I am out of my depth with the Greek text. I would say sorry to the reader, but I feel at this moment that I can’t; for after 15 years of reading Campbell, I am still none the wiser as to what is so groundbreaking about his understanding of the perfect tense. More than this, I feel truly let down by his commentary. For surely it is in the realm of the ‘rubber hitting the road’ of exegesis and theology that any grammatical thesis must be proved.[16]

[1] Constantine R. Campbell, 1, 2, and 3 John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), Kindle: 1 John 5:1-5.

[2] I’m aware the grammarians avoid the phrase ‘present tense’, ‘perfect tense,’ etc., and wish to convey time as ‘present tense-form’, and so on, due to the aspectival nature of the perfect. However, I’m writing for ordinary Christians, not scholars.

[3] Campbell, 1, 2, and 3 John, 2:28-29.

[4] Ibid., 5:1-5.

[5] Ibid., 5:10-12: Overcoming the world.

[6] Aorist participle: “the begetter”.

[7] Campbell, 1 John, 2:28-29.

[8] Ibid., 4:7-8.

[9] Ibid., 3:7-9. Not that we avoid actual sinning. John is referring to the principle, or seed, within them that produces nothing but the divine perfection of obedience and love, faith, and fleeing the world. Such is God’s life within us, as God’s life in us by his Spirit cannot fail to produce anything else but perfection. Not unless we wish to accuse God of producing death and life in us! However, our flesh still sins, sadly.

[10] Ibid., 5:10-12.

[11] Ibid., 26.

[12] Ibid., 26.

[13] Ibid., 6, 8. 51, 110.

[14] Daniel B. Wallace, “The Participle,” Bible.org, November 1, 2000, https://bible.org/article/participle.

[15] Same for the perfect participles in 5:4, 18: the main verbs are in the present tense.

[16] I say this as someone who is just a regular Christian: I have very limited time, and some of those academic books are horrendously expensive.