John 5 doesn’t define different kinds of faith — it defines true faith.
Again, without the stipulations of "true faith" then we only have the meaning of the word faith/belief to go off of. Otherwise we default into a no true scotsman fallacy. Where "true faith" is defined by personal preference.
The Matthew 7 men thought they had it because they pointed to miracles, but miracles don’t prove belief.
If you define belief/faith as simple acknowledgment that Jesus is Lord, then there is a conflict with what Jesus says in mat 7.
If however you understand that belief demands actions/works that demonstrate your love for God and love for your neighbor, Then the contradiction between these verses in John and what Jesus says in mat 7 goes away.
Claiming supernatural works is actually the highest form of self‑confidence, not saving faith, which is why Jesus says He never knew them.
Jesus in judgement did not say the miracles they performed were illegitimate, He point to their sin stating they did not do the will of the Father. This will is spelled out in the law. In luke 10 Jesus has a pharisee sum up the law by saying "Love God with all of your ability to do so, and Love your neighbor as Yourself."
In short the reason Jesus condemned these men is because; These men believed, but they did not have love.
You can interpret “made alive,” “saved,” and “regenerated” as happening at judgment — when Christ chooses not to condemn — but that’s not how Jesus or Paul use the terms. In Scripture, “made alive” is a present reality, not a future verdict. Judgment is the decision; regeneration is the life that comes before it.
The clearest BCV is Ephesians 2:5 — and it does tie them together: “He made us alive… by grace you have been saved.”
Paul uses two verbs to describe one act:
And yes — if someone insists salvation happens at judgment, they could try to push this verse forward.
But the grammar itself is aorist + perfect, describing a completed act with present results, not a future verdict.
So Eph 2:5 meets requirement #1.
So keep reading: verse 6:
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
You are sacrificing grammar for context. Context has Paul speaking of a future where all who are to be saved is saved and he is now in eph 2 describing the method of salvation.
I say that because Clearly none of this has happened yet.
We do not sit next to Christ in the Heavenly realms. He has not shown us anything because those coming ages have not come yet.
So again this is why I keep saying every time you bring up eph 2 Paul is describing the mechanism of salvation/the ins and outs of how we are saved. Not when..
When paul is speaking in a past tense he is speaking from a future perspective as witnessed by verse 6 and 7. As again None of this has happened yet.
You are only looking at verbiage and not the completed context of the message it self. If you look at the context you can not deny that Paul is infact speaking of a future event that shows us seated next to Christ so we can experience the promised riches and grace.
There is no BCV where a human initiates regeneration. None. Not one.
Every regeneration text attributes the action to God, the Spirit, or Christ:
John 1:13 — “born… not of the will of man, but of God.”
John 3:6–8 — “the Spirit gives birth.”
Titus 3:5 — “He saved us… by the washing of regeneration.”
1 Peter 1:3 — “He has caused us to be born again.”
James 1:18 — “Of His own will He brought us forth.”
There is no verse where a human performs an action to trigger new birth.
Which is the point I've been repeating from the OP.
Humans respond, believe, seek, repent, obey, follow, endure, buy, ask, knock — but none of those are described as causing regeneration.
So requirement #2 cannot be met, because Scripture never assigns the initiation of new birth to the believer.
Ephesians 2:5 ties salvation and new birth together in one divine act. And there is no BCV where a believer initiates regeneration — Scripture always attributes new birth to God alone.
Glad to have you on board.
Titus 3:5 actually supports what I just told you — regeneration is God’s act, not ours. Paul says:
“He saved us… through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”
That means:
rebirth = His act
renewal = His act
saving = His act
Nothing in Titus 3:5 says when He saves — only how He saves.
And it explicitly denies any human‑initiated action: “not because of righteous things we had done.”
So Titus 3:5 fits perfectly with the two points you challenged me on:
1. Salvation and rebirth happen together — God does both.
Titus 3:5 ties saved and rebirth in the same sentence, just like Ephesians 2:5.
2. There is no BCV where a believer initiates regeneration.
Titus 3:5 says the opposite: He saved us… He washed… He renewed… the Spirit did the work.
That’s the whole point of the verse.
So God decides Who is saved and who is not...
Great! Next Question.. When this decision is made/was made by Jesus (To save us/regenerate us) how does that differ from Judgement?
Reminder: Judgment =when Jesus decided we will be/are saved
judgement day = when Jesus informs us of our eternal fate.
If there is no discernible difference then why can't it be said That salvation/regeneration happens at judgement/when God/Jesus decides to save/regenerate us?
You quoted: 1 John 5:1 “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…”
In Greek:
“believes” — present participle: \hopisteuoˉn
“is born” — perfect passive: \gegenneˉtaiektouTheou
That means:
the believing one is already one who has been born of God
belief is the evidence of having been born, not the cause of being born
John is not saying, “When you believe, you trigger new birth.”
He’s saying, “If you are believing, that shows you have been born of God.”
So I’m not making anything up, and I don’t need to retract:
1 John 5:1 ties ongoing belief to prior new birth—God’s act first, your believing as its fruit.
wow.. you said:
1 John 5:1 — faith is present because new birth already occurred.
You've complete mis quoted 1 John 5. Not only that, your exegesis of 1 john 5 is also wrong. 1 John 5 goes into depth on what requirements have been placed on "belief. " (What qualifies as or evidences of "belief")
*Hint, what 1John says here points back to the Love Christ talks about in Luke 10.
So 1 john is saying is Love describes in luke 10 is a requirement for one to claim they 'believe.' In Short we are required to perform works as a result of the love we are supposed to have. Without this love and the accompanying works done in love, you can not say you 'believe.'
This is why the mat 7 men could perform miricles via the Holy Spirit and still not be saved. Which is what paul tells us in 1 cor: 13 If I speak in the tonguesof men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.