Your engagement in this discussion has been more assertive and accusatory than substantive interaction with anything I've actually laid out. If this conversation is to be productive, I would ask that your further comments focus on engaging the argument and the textual evidence directly.
Regarding your claim that "it is improper to place the time of action of present participles after the time of action of the main verb," I already answered this in posts
#12 and
#17. You did not meaningfully engage with either element of that answer. What I originally pointed out to you was that this principle you're wanting to invoke (that "present participles have the same time of action as the main verb," to use your original wording) is basically true in
narrative or temporal discourse, but not in
gnomic or didactic statements. It's pretty obvious why: in gnomic contexts,
the main verb itself isn't describing a point in time. It expresses a timeless, axiomatic reality. That's what a gnomic/didactic statement is. So, when you universalize the rule, you're trying to attach a "time of action" to something that doesn't
have one. It's like timing a definition with a stopwatch.
Additionally, from your "response" in post
#15 until now, you have continued to introduce this confusion between
logical relationship and
temporal sequence. The OP itself distinguishes the two, clarifying that this isn't an argument for temporal sequence. You either missed or ignored that. I corrected you on it in post
#17 when you misrepresented my position as concerning a chronological sequence of events. You ignored that too. Now, you're still ignoring it. You're caricaturing the argument to fit the objection you want to give. Do you understand the difference between logical and chronological relationships?
Another gnomic example (just one of many we could go to):
1 Peter 2:6 - "...the one believing (ὁ πιστεύων, present participle) in Him will not be put to shame (καταισχυνθῇ, aorist subjunctive)."
The present participle describes the defining mark of those characterized by faith; the aorist subjunctive expresses the
logical result of that: ultimate eschatological vindication. If the participle's "time" equals the main verb's, we're left with the nonsensical idea that one "believes" at the moment in time one "is not put to shame," as if faith occurs only simultaneously with final vindication.
I have not "wriggled around" on this point; my position has been consistent from the OP, as I've pointed out to you more than once. Go back and read it. The argument is that 1 John 5:1 expresses a
logical,
not temporal relationship between regeneration and faith. You're not addressing the point by repeatedly recasting it as a chronological objection.
You're not stating what problem you see here. These mean essentially the same thing. If two things occur simultaneously,
there's no sequence in time. When I said that regeneration and faith may occur simultaneously in our temporal experience (as I noted in the OP to begin with), it was in response to your repeated discussion of temporal sequences. The point I was making is that
timing is irrelevant to the argument. I am not making a chronological claim. My point from the start has been about
logical priority, not temporal sequence. Nothing I have said contradicts that, so your claim that I'm arguing both ways is a misunderstanding of my position.
You are not reading my posts.
In post
#17, I originally challenged this "faith after salvation" caricature of my argument by asking you directly: "Where have I argued for 'believing after salvation'?"
You did not answer.
Instead, you simply doubled down on the caricature
in your next reply, suggesting that I am "rearranging" grammar "to say that trust in Christ does not come before
salvation" (my emphasis).
In post
#30, I pointed out that you did not address my question. I then explained the reason for asking it, and how your wording misunderstands/misrepresents my position.
You did not answer or acknowledge.
Instead, in your
next reply, you went right back to the language of
temporal experience ("you are arguing for a reality that we do not experience"), continuing to ignore my
repeated clarifications that the argument doesn't concern the question of temporal experience.
In post
#36, I
again pointed out your category confusion on this.
No acknowledgement.
Instead, in your
next reply, you shifted course entirely and took a personal experience approach, suggesting that you know my theology is off because your "alarm bells are going off." You chose not to engage at all with the content of my rebuttal to you.
Then, in verse
#67,
again, you repeat your caricature of my position: "there is no way to change the truth that God
forgives sins and gives spiritual life to those who believe. It's not the other way around." (My emphasis). We're debating the logical priority of
regeneration and faith, not
the forgiveness of sins (justification).
And guess what? You've now done it again! "The fact is, you are arguing that faith in Christ comes after salvation." False. That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that faith in Christ is
logically subsequent to
regeneration, not justification, final salvation, or the whole package. If you can't be honest about what it is I'm even saying, we have nothing to discuss.
I mean, they do. What more do you want me to say? You refuse to engage the content of my arguments in any meaningful attempt to show exegetically where I've erred. Do you expect me to just let you win a debate?