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

Is it ok to let your kids believe in Santa Claus?

"A wink of his eye, and a twist of his head, soon led me to know I had nothing to dread."- Twas' the Night Before Christmas, Clement C. Moore As a kid I was taught that Santa Claus was going to bring me the presents I wished for on Christmas morning. I watched movies and cartoons about Santa riding his sleigh with gifts to give to all of the children around the world. Some of the stories depicted Santa as giving coal to bad kids and toys to good kids and I was told jokingly by my parents that I would "receive coal if I was bad," but it was never made to be a serious threat. Up until around the age of seven I really believed that Santa magically came down the chimney and left presents for my brothers and I, and it never caused me to have any resentment toward my parents for telling me he was real. I saw it as my parents wanting to give me a fun Christmas adventure, a magical experience that my brothers and I could use our imagination with. As I learned

William Seymour- The son of former slaves that turned the Christian world upside-down, forever

Just five years after the American Civil War in the year 1870 two emancipated slaves in Centerville Louisiana named Simon Seymour and Phyllis Salabarr had a son named William. These Catholic African Americans could never have imagined that their son would become the founder of one of the largest Christian movements in the history of the world, affecting every part of the globe and every sphere of society. Simon Seymour served in the Union Army during the civil war and returned afterward to the South where his family experienced poverty and racially volatile circumstances alongside of many other blacks during the reconstruction period . Although the war had ended, and slaves were now emancipated, the Seymour family like many others faced economic conditions that crushed the hopes and dreams of many African Americans in the South. Nevertheless, God had his eyes on Simon Seymour's son William, and the world was never going to be the same. Not much is known about William Seymour's

Did Ben Shapiro debunk the resurrection of Jesus???

In Ben Shapiro's recent interview with Christian apologist and philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig we find him presenting 3 major objections to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In this article we will be analyzing these objections in detail. For the video version of this interview clip and analysis you can simply click THIS LINK . Objection #1: Many resurrections have happened in the Bible, why is Jesus’ resurrection unique? The resurrection of Jesus is unique to other Biblical resurrections in a few different ways. Dr. Craig correctly pointed out that the religio-historical context of Jesus being tried and condemned as a blasphemer and then subsequently raised from the dead, sends a message that God approved of Jesus’ claims about Himself. Also, other resurrections in the Bible were performed by a human conduit, in the case of Jesus we find God Himself raising Jesus from the dead, confirming His unique status as the Son of God. Lastly, other resurrections from the dead only