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

A letter to Modern Christians on Church Attendance...

On March 22nd of 2020 an unprecedented event occurred. This wasn't the first time that a widespread disease afflicted human-kind, nor was it the first time that health measures were taken by a human government in order to mitigate the risk of an epidemic. The unprecedented event that occurred on Sunday, March 22nd of 2020 was the physical absence of worshippers gathering as the visible Church of Jesus Christ in the United States as well as other places around the world. The 10 person gathering limit issued by the Centers for Disease Control led to the widespread closure of house's of worship across the country. Up to that point in Church History there had never been an example of this magnitude in which faithful Christians avoided the physical gathering together to worship Jesus Christ and study His Word in a community of fellowship. The typical reason offered by many Christian leaders in an attempt to justify the temporary closure of churches was something like this, "Chr

How should Christians respond to "cancel culture?"

With the rise of modern technology and social media platforms in the past decade or so we have seen a vast increase certain ideological groups seeking to cancel, ban, and silence those with different, offensive, or annoying opinions. Most of this has been done in the name of seeking to preserve a "safe environment" for people to engage the internet with less of a risk of being "triggered" by a differing opinion. Though on a historical level the ability to limit certain free speech that incites physical violence or destructive behavior has been pretty much agreed upon by most people. It seems clear that the idea that those who say things which are wrong, offensive, or annoying should be canceled, silenced and sidelined is entirely un-American and ultimately not Christian.  Cancel culture is demonic and oppressive. It's the same tactic used by the enemy to oppose the gospel around the world. The message of the cross is offensive to those who don't

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