John 1.13 is cited by Calvinists as proof that man can have no part whatsoever in his salvation, not even in believing the gospel (hence the necessity of Irresistible Grace): "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Van Baren writes, "It is only by the irresistible grace of God that one is born again." In spite of saying that the will plays an important part in salvation, Spurgeon declared, "It is utterly impossible that human language could have put a stronger negative on the vainglorious claims of the human will than this passage does...."

Since a baby has nothing to do with its birth, Calvinists reason that neither can the sinner have anything to do with being regenerated. That spiritual birth is nothing at all like physical birth, however, is a major point of this very passage: "not of blood (physical)...flesh (human passion)...will of man (man's planning)." Palmer even reasons that because an unborn baby doesn't exist, neither does an unsaved person: "a nonbeing does not exist and therefore can have no desires to go to Christ." Neither can it sin or reject Christ or have the least need of being regenerated, if it "does not exist." But how can it be said that those who are not yet "born again" don't even exist?!

Calvin said "infants...are saved...regenerated by the Lord," even though too young to understand the gospel. Garrett declares, John the Baptist was born again while in his mother's womb." In fact, the new birth was not experienced by Old Testament saints. Furthermore, it comes only by believing "the word of God...which by the gospel is preached" (1 Peter 1.23-25)-hardly possible for infants, much less for a fetus.

Palmer continues his unbiblical reasoning: "A baby never desires or decides...[or] contributes one iota towards his own birth.... In a similar fashion, the unbeliever cannot take one step toward his rebirth." Even such a firm Calvinist as Pink points out this fallacy: "Regeneration is not the creating of a person which hitherto had no existence, but the renewing and restoring of a person whom sin had unfitted for communion with God...." Vance explains the obvious contradiction inherent in this theory:
Is a baby responsible for any of its actions before it is born? If not, then [by this reasoning] neither would an unsaved man be responsible for any of his [so he could hardly be a sinner].
As Vance points out, you can't have it both ways. Hence, God is not allowed to send anyone to Hell, according to Calvinism, to round out its theory.

What I have come to see is Calvinists are in so much dissension with Christians, but also amongst themselves. That's the problem when you try to read Scripture with the mind without a quickened spirit regenerated with God's life and indwelling Holy Spirit. It is also the problem that exists when you try to rationalize an impossibility.