John 1.11-13

[everstill]

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.

[Nottheworld]

John 1.11-13 simply states that flesh and blood have no relationship to the new birth, which is spiritual and completely unrelated to physical birth. Treating the two as analogous was the very mistake Nicodemus made: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born" (John 3.4)? Christ made a clear distinction: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3.6). These are two different births, and any seeming similarities are only superficial and cannot become the basis for sound conclusions.

John also explains that the new birth-which Christ tells Nicodemus is essential for entering the kingdom of God (John 3.3,5)-does not come by man''s will but by the will of God. Man did not conceive of the new birth nor can he effect it by his efforts. Nor does the the non-Calvinist believe he can. Yet we are accused of that. Bishop imagines he is refuting the non-Calvinist when he declares that the sinner "cannot renew his own will, change his own heart, nor regenerate his bad nature." Of course not.

How does maintaining that we must believe the gospel to be born again suggest that we can regenerate ourselves? It doesn't.

Of course, only God can regenerate a sinner. But verse 12 declares that God regenerates only those who receive Christ and believe on His name. Yet this verse is commonly overlooked or even avoided by most Calvinists, who reason from verse 13 alone with no regard for content.

Is the new birth imposed upon man by a sovereign God's irresistible grace? Certainly not! It comes by faith in Christ. Moreover, dozens of passages declare that eternal life is a gift from God to be received by "whosoever believeth." Even Calvin said, "Now it may be asked how men receive the salvation offered to them by the hand of God? I reply, by faith." Yet non-Calvinists are criticized for saying the same.

[AlwaysLoved]

John Calvin stated that "the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration." Let's see what kind of word Calvin is actually talking about. He says, "we deny the power of God cannot regenerate infants," which I agree, but not in the way he means, for baptism of infants does not save them, nor does being born into a Christian family. Rather, because ALL children have not reached the age of accountability, not just Calvinist children. He affirms, "faith, cometh by hearing, the use of which infants have not yet obtained" so Calvin assumes they are saved in another way, "not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is...not laying down an invariable rule..."

A child baptized or not (who dare call this real baptism!?) has not even begun to possess what Calvin admits is "the only seed of spiritual regeneration." As a devout Roman Catholic, Calvin retained throughout his life this unbiblical view of baptism that he learned from Augustine. As a result of that error, baptism became a substitute for faith in Christ through the gospel, which Christ and His apostles declare so plainly is the essential to salvation or the new birth. His own baptism as an infant was the only "born again" experience we know of for John Calvin. According to Scriptures this is not the new birth for receiving eternal life.

Calvin's unbiblical ideas led to this astonishing heresy: children of believers are automatically among the elect and thus already regenerated from the womb. That false assurance has probably led multitudes astray! Millions are baptised (falsely), confirmed (falsely), married (falsely), and buried (falsely) by state churches, and that is all they know of God and Christ. Listen to Calvin:

The children of believers are not baptised in order that...they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a formal sign, because in virtue of that promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ."
Is it not very strange the phrase "perseverance of the saints" by works rather than "preservation of the saints" by the "keeping power of God." A Calvinist declares, "the children of believers, as long as they do not manifest the contrary, are to be reckoned among God's elect." Behavior rather than faith in Christ becomes a Calvinist's assurance of salvation-a deadly error, considering the undeniable capacity of the unsaved to live seemingly good lives.

It gets weirder. If a child of one of the "elect" is by that fact alone also among the elect, then his or her children would also be among the elect, and grandchildren and so on. Is this not a logical conclusion? Why don't leading Calvinists today, instead of praising Calvin's Institutes, warn of this error?

Why should a Calvinist child who reaches the age of accountability need to concern himself with the gospel, for he has been declared to be one of the elect anyway? What need is there even to preach the gospel since the non-elect can't believe it and the elect are regenerated without it? Calvin managed to rationalize this problem in his interpretation of John 1.13 and James 1.18:

Faith...is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist [of Calvinism] affirms that no man can believe, unless he is begotten of God.... No man can believe who has not been renewed [reborn in Calvinism] by the Spirit of the God [of Calvinism].
John 1.13 says "who were born, not of blood [physically] nor the will of the flesh [human passion] nor the will of man [man's planning], but of God [it is God's idea]" and James 1.18 reads, "of his own will [God does it] he brought us forth [He effects it] by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures." God does the saving, not man, is the essence of these two verses, but the condition is placed before man (John 1.12): "But to all who receive him, who believed in his name, he gave power to be children of God."

Nothing in James or John teaches according to Calvinism that "non man can believe, unless he be begotten of God." Rather, it is through believing "the word of truth" that one is regenerated. Receiving Christ and believing on His name are required by God for Him to regenerate the sinner. This is how God has designed His creation and provided man made in His image the enabling opportunity for all, whosoever is willing, to be saved through His redemptive design which sadly, the Calvinist rejects for a cultic atmosphere and puffed up idolatry teaching to self-exalt themselves above God of the Bible.

Is a person saved if they assume they are regenerated as Institutes teaches which "precedes faith" of the Calvinism-type? Of course not, for where is the humility in coming to the cross as helpless sinners to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior? It is the belief in total depravity that keeps one from accepting Christ; or to put it another way, it is is the unwillingness to receive Christ authentically that one incorporates the teaching of total depravity. Total depravity does not exist in Scripture, for the Bible teaches we all remain in God's image after the fall. Amen.

[AlwaysLoved]

Kober insists "man does not have a free will when it comes to the matter of salvation." Pink insists, "In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but...not the power to receive Christ." Palmer asserts, "Only when the Holy Spirit regenerates man and makes him alive spiritually can man have faith in Christ and be saved." Custance declares, "What could possibly be a plainer statement than this of the fact that salvation is conferred upon a select number who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born again by the will of God alone?"

Yet each of these statements contradict the passage, which clearly says that those who have "received him...[and] believe on His name...become sons of God ...born...of God" (1.12-13). Vance provides astounding quotes from Calvinists contradicting John 1.11-13:

A person is regenerated before he believes. (W.E. Best)
A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved. (Boettner)
A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated. (Arthur W. Pink)
We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe. (Grover E. Gunn)
Being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, [man] is thereby enabled...to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (Westminster Confession of Faith)
Calvinist impose upon Scripture their false teaching. Bob Thompson challenges any Calvinist "to point to one instance in the Bible where God implanted His Holy Spirit in...an individual [B]before he or she took God at His Word and was saved...."

There is no reference to John 1.12 in the 600 pages of the Selected Writings of John Knox or in Pink's The Sovereignty of God. Piper makes no substantive comment about it in The Justification of God. None of the 13 authors in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace confront it. White only responds to it because Norm Geisler mentions it in his book, Chosen But Free, and White's book was written specifically as a rebuttal to Geisler.

White attempts to respond to Geisler's statement that "verse 12 [John 1.12] makes it plain that the means by which this new birth is obtained is by [sic] 'all who receive him [Christ]'." Geisler means that verse 12 gives the qualification ("as many as received him...who believe on his name") for receiving the new birth mentions in verse 13, and that the new birth is totally "of God." This is what verse 12 clearly says.

The problem with White's response is simple and twofold: 1) He introduces (without any biblical support) the favorite argument about faith being impossible without new birth. That assertion is not only contrary to this passage but also to the numerous passages calling upon the unregenerate to believe and offering salvation through faith; and 2) He fails to distinguish between man's believing and God's regenerating. Neither Geisler nor anyone else critical of the Calvinist interpretation of John 1.13 imagines that man's faith causes regeneration. Thus the Calvinist is arguing against something his critics don't even espouse.

[everstill]

Jesus says Calvinists are condemned already because they refuse to believe in order to be saved: "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.... He that believeth...is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already..." (John 3.16,18). Salvation and new birth are one and the same. White tries to argue against this:

Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is "received" by an "act of free will." In fact, the exact opposite is stated clearly, "the ones born not of the will of man...." It is an amazing example of how preconceived notions can be read into a text that CBF [Geisler's Chosen But Free] can say the text makes the new birth dependent upon an act of the "free will" when the text says the opposite.

[Furthermore, if a person can have saving faith without the new birth, then what does the new birth accomplish? Evidently one does not need the new birth to obey God's commands or have saving faith.
White confuses what man must do (believe) with what God does (regenerate). That the new birth is "not of the will of man, but of God" does not deny that man must believe for God to effect this work in Him. Man's faith in Christ no more causes the new birth than faith causes forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God. Forgiveness of sins, the new birth into God's family, and many other blessings we have in Christ are all the work of God-but they are only bestowed on those who believe. Believing did not create these blessings; it merely fulfilled God's condition for receiving them. Yes, regeneration is not by man's fleshly will but is all of God; however, God regenerates only those who have received and believed on Christ, as the passage clearly states.

Unquestionably, not only James 1.18 ("begat he us with the word of truth") but numerous other passages teach that believing "the word of truth" is essential for and must precede new birth. The gospel is the specific "word of truth" that must be believed for the new birth to occur: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16.31). Peter puts it succinctly: "Being born again...by the word of God...which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Peter 1.23,25). Believing the gospel is the means God uses to effect the new birth-thus faith cannot be imparted by God after regeneration, as Calvinism insists.

In response to Nicodemus's question about how a man can be born again into God's kingdom, Christ explains that He is going to be "lifted up" for sin upon the cross like the brazen serpent in the wilderness, "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3.15-16). Salvation is not of works, but by faith: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4.5). As Paul repeatedly says, the sinner is "justified by faith" (Rom. 5.1).

The sinner must hear and believe the gospel before regeneration, not after it. That is why we must preach the gospel and seek, like Paul, to persuade men. Calvin reversed the biblical order, as do his followers today, declaring that no one can believe the gospel until he has first been regenerated. As Spurgeon said, however, one who has been regenerated has no need of the gospel, being saved already. Hence, A Calvinist chooses a false salvation, having no need of the gospel.