ZionSeeker caustically remarked:
The relative clause certainly modifies something. If it modified what was antecedent to receiving, it would be pluperfect. no offence, but can you actually read Greek unaided, because i am having a hard time believing that?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Let me only say in regard to your ad hominem slur, that if you are asking if I need a walker to read Greek, the answer is no. Doubtless, I have forgotten more from my many years of Greek study than you have learned in your one semester study. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Let me offer you something to ponder as you learn Koine Greek:

The Aorist for the (English) Pluperfect. The Aorist Indicative is frequently used in narrative passages of a past event which precedes another past event mentioned or implied in the context. In English it is common in such a case to indicate the real order of the events by the use of a Pluperfect for the earlier event. HA. 837; G.MT. 58; B. pp. 199f. [Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, Ernest De Witt Burton, p. 23.]

The difference between the English Pluperfect and the Greek Pluperfect:

English Pluperfect: is used to mark the fact that the event expressed by it preceded another past event indicated by the context, and this whether the earlier event is thought of as completed at the time of the later event, or only indefinitely as a simple occurrence preceding the later event.

Greek Pluperfect: is used to represent an action as standing complete, i.e., has having an existing result, at a point of past time indicated by the context. [Ibid p. 24
And just as an aside, which for me looking back I can now <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. The book from which the quotes above were taken was part of an advanced Greek course I took at one of the seminaries I studied at. It was a requirement of the professor of that course, that this book be memorized. Thanks for making those grueling hours of memorization meaningful, albeit 25 years after the fact.

ZionSeeker continues:
But this very passage in Colossians, as I have pointed out many many times, shows that the quickening is through FAITH:
BTW, the address of that passage is v. 12, not 2. The context of this passage is that of Paul arguing against the syncretism of the Judaisers, who taught an admixture of Christianity, Judaism and Paganism. In the immediate context, he is addressing their Judaistic imposition in that they insisted that Christians needed to be physically circumcised. But Paul argues that the circumcision which the believers at Colossae received was far superior in that it was of the heart, which was made "without hands", accomplished the putting off and casting away of their entire evil nature, in its sanctifying aspect to be progressively realized, and it signified an actual union with Christ, Himself.

The "having been raised with Him through faith" is addressing not regeneration as you suppose but the believer's identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for their justification (burial) and sanctification (resurrection), so that all the benefits of Christ's substitutionary atonement for them was bestowed upon them the moment they believed; in the operative power of God Who raised Him from the dead).

In verse 13, Paul exalts the sovereignty of God's grace Who took them (referring to the Colossae believers) when they were pagans, people who had no interest, desire in God, indeed without the ability to do so, never mind exercise faith which results from one's predisposition, and made them alive suzoopoieo with Christ. Here, both regeneration and the life of faith which results from that regeneration are in view. For he adds, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;. Thus, there is no evidence here that regeneration follows faith, but to the contrary, regeneration produces faith which apprehends Christ and thus justification and sanctification.

And you further state:
"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31

if believing is required to have life, why do you deny it? this is a simple question, but you won't come to terms with it. dead means unable to have fellowship with God, or to know God. it means the spiritual part of man which contacts God is dead. when a person believes, they receive new life. you cannot get around this verse. regeneration purifies the heart, but the bible says that faith purifies the heart. you cannot dance around these scriptures at will.
[note the Greek, please]But these are written in order that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and in order that believing you may continue to have life in His name.

This text is NOT addressing regeneration, but that life which was already received; i.e., justification and sanctification. Exegete the text... don't eisogete it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

another text you quote:
"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."
Peter likewise is speaking of the "purification of the heart", which is justification. There is not even a hint here that he was referring to the Gentile's regeneration.

And you conclude with:
any philosophy which contradicts these plain scriptures must be wrong, however reasonable and good it sounds
Agreed! And this is especially true when the philosophy isn't reasonable and sounds bad. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]