Skip to main content

Does John 1:13 mean that man has no choice in the matter of salvation?


Many people who are of the Calvinist camp of theological interpretation believe that John 1:13 is proof that God irresistibly saves the elect without consideration of their choice in the matter. Here is how the verse reads:

"children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

If we are going to deal with verse 13 we need to take a look at the context beginning primarily with verse 12. In John 1:12 it says "to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." Receiving the word of Christ is a choice, it's the act of faith that leads to being a child of God (see also Romans 10:17).  In verse 13 when John says "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," we have to look at it in light of the preceding verse, which clearly says men must make a choice to receive Him. Nonetheless, let's unpack verse 13 in a bit more detail.  

1. Born, not of blood- means not a natural birth but spiritual.
2. Nor the will of the flesh- means not because of sexual desire that leads to pregnancy.
3. Nor the will of man- not because of someones desire to have a child.

John is drawing a parallel between natural childbirth and spiritual rebirth.

Natural childbirth is:
-Born of blood
-Conceived through the will of the flesh (sexual desire)
-Initiated due to the will of a married couple

Spiritual childbirth is:
-Born of the Spirit
-Conceived through the will of God to save men.
-And initiated in God seeking to save the lost, not the lost having the ability to seek Him.

So even though men must "receive Him to become children of God (v. 12)" the process originates and is initiated by God not men (v.13). This is perfectly consistent with the non-Calvinist doctrine of prevenient grace, which teaches that God draws all men to Himself through Christ but they retain the ability to resist Him if they choose. However, since Calvinists deny that men have any say in the matter of our salvation they cannot reconcile their systemic with the clear point the John makes regarding man's responsibility to receive Him personally.

Therefore, we must conclude that when taking the verse's context into consideration John 1:13 means that God is the One who initiates, enables, and completes our salvation but we must comply (by grace) with His initial drawing in order to become His children. This interpretation is able to remain consistent with the entirety of the text while the Calvinist position must ultimately deny that man in fact is responsible to personally receive Christ to become a Child of God. For more information on "is Calvinism Biblical" Click here.

Written by: Kyle Bailey, M.Th

For more inspirational content SUBSCRIBE to my YouTube channel.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Can a Christian need Deliverance from Demons?

The question of whether Christians can be demonized and in need of deliverance is a th ought-provoking topic that ignites intense debate within Christian circles. While opinions may differ, this chapter aims to present a comprehensive overview of how Christians can benefit from the ministry of deliverance, supported by scriptural evidence. By delving into biblical passages, studying the original Greek, and examining the theological perspectives surrounding this topic, we can gain a deeper understanding of the possibility of Christians requiring deliverance from demonic influence/oppression. Oftentimes you will hear it said in Christian circles: "a person can either be possessed, oppressed, or influenced by the devil." However, this terminology is not used in the Bible, especially as it relates to the word "possessed." In fact, the Greek word "daimonizomai," used in some Bibles to mean "demon-possessed" is often improperly translated. Scholars ar

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

Several proponents of the movement to try to make homosexuality compatible with scripture have often claimed that "Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality, therefore it's not something we should forbid in the New Covenant." Is this true? Did Jesus give a free pass on the sin of homosexuality? I would like to start by saying that this approach is both deceptive regarding the teachings of Jesus in His ministry and completely misrepresentative of the doctrine of the scripture's infallibility. Firstly, Jesus explicitly affirmed the Biblical definition of marriage as God's plan for sexually intimate relationships: "‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:5-9)" We also find Jesus explicitly condemning all forms of sexual immorality after His resur

A Review of: "Calvinism, Arminianism & The Word of God: A Calvary Chapel Perspective" By: Chuck Smith

Recently a Pastor friend of mine shared with me an article written by the founder of the Calvary Chapel Denomination Chuck Smith. It was written with the intention of addressing the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue for all of the Calvary Chapel Churches. To see the article CLICK HERE . First of all I like the format of the paper in which he clearly set out to address both views and then clarify the Calvary Chapel stance. A couple of things that I noticed I want to point out below: Overall he did a fair job conveying the Arminian view, however I am not sure why he seemed to be confused on a couple of things he said. Over the year Arminius’ beliefs have been misrepresented and demonized by Calvinists so I can see why he made a few false assumptions regarding their beliefs. 1. He stated, “Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.” This is actually a descript