Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Jon Sellers | PentecostalTheology.com
Here in 1:13 John is offering 3 negations that contrast the claims of the Jews (which are clearly seen by the Pharisees in John 8 above) with those now given the right to become children of God. These negate three common ways of understanding how one is a child in relationship.
First it is not by being born of Jewish descent. There is no ethnic or genealogical status that makes one a child of God. John nullifies ethnic and tribal claims of the Jews.
Second, it is not by human decision. So one cannot be named a child of God by religious authorities or by the favor of a ruler. No human can make another a child of God. That is God’s prerogative alone.
Third, it is not by a husband’s will. It is not be being born into a Jewish family or even a believer’s family that makes one a child of God, but by faith alone. So a man cannot make children of God just by making children with his wife.
All three of these negations are directed against the common beliefs of the Jews of the first century that they were God’s children by rights as Jews and not by faith. Paul echoes this rejection of that false assumption by his statement in Rom. 11:20 But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble.
John’s gospel is a powerful presentation on the grace of God though faith. This passage (and his whole gospel) is not a philosophical argument about free will or monergism, but about the superiority of grace through faith rather than assumption of birth.
To read monergism into John 1:12, 13 is a reading into it of 16th century arguments unrelated to John’s concerns.
Jon Sellers [06/27/2015 9:39 PM]
Any responses?
Jon Sellers [06/27/2015 10:18 PM]
Barry G. Carpenter, did you want to respond since this is your issue from the other thread?
Barry G. Carpenter [06/28/2015 1:15 AM]
Its Sunday here – so maybe tomorrow after I have given it some thought. Thank you.
Jon Sellers [06/28/2015 1:17 AM]
Sure no hurry.
Barry G. Carpenter [06/28/2015 2:51 PM]
The book of John is written to a universal audience. Certainly you could argue that Jesus addresses the the Jewish concept of justification in places like John 3 re: Nicodemus. But I think you are disregarding the immediate context. There is no mention of Jew in the proceeding verses of c. 1. In fact it is the universal audience that John is clearly addressing. Consider the wording of v. 9 & 10 “enlightens every man” and “the world did not know Him.” Perhaps one could try to argue that “His own” refers to Jews but that does not work because He creates all men and we have the “as many that receive Him”- those that receive Him were Jews and Gentiles. (2) To say that John is limiting his intro. to Jews is to place something in the text that is not there and ignoring the universal language that is there. “Not by blood”- we agree is not by virtue of lineage (ie., Jew), Perhaps this verse is saying that another person cannot declare someone else to be saved- maybe. But your interpretation of the 3rd negation is beyond reason, There is nothing in the text re: “husband”- again you are inserting something in the text that is not there. (3) You make the 3rd point the same as the first point “not by being a “jew”) which makes the point moot. Your saying not by(a) being a Jew., (b) not by the declaration of another (c) not by being a Jew. (4) I suppose I could accuse you of having a 19th century interpretation of the text as you accuse me of having a 16th century but that is not a valid way to argue. Origin does not determine truth. (5) Sir your accusation of being a 16th century interpretation is not factual. Consider please Augustine: “But that men might be born of God, God was first born of them. For Christ is God, and Christ was born of men. It was only a mother, indeed, that He sought upon earth; because He had already a Father in heaven: He by whom we were to be created was born of God, and He by whom we were to be re-created was born of a woman. Marvel not, then, O man, that thou art made a son by grace, that thou art born of God according to His Word. The Word Himself first chose to be born of man, that thou mightest be born of God unto salvation, and say to thyself, Not without reason did God wish to be born of man, but because He counted me of some importance, that He might make me immortal, and for me be born as a mortal man. When, therefore, he had said, “born of God,” lest we should, as it were, be filled with amazement and trembling at such grace, at grace so great as to exceed belief that men are born of God, as if assuring thee, he says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” (Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 419 AD). It is the natural reading of the negations without special pleadings and without adding to the text that leads us to the natural conclusion of monergism. The only way to escape “not means not” is by ignoring the immediate language, ignoring the purpose of the book and making additions to the text that simple is not there. Thank you sir.
Ed Brewer
no
Louise Cummings
I m not to familiar with that word. Even though I read the article on it. I believe everyone has a choice to receive God. Or a choice to reject Him. I don’t believe God president some to go to hell. And some to go to Heaven. I believe He died for us all to go to Heaven. But man is the only one that God made to make choices. And a lot of people doesn’t choose God by their
Own choice. God gave every one a chance. I Choose God.
Varnel Watson
Jon Sellers pointed out that John is speaking against the backdrop of Jewish belief that they are all descendants of Abraham by birth. They can identify themselves by tribe. But Jesus has already rebuked the Pharisees for claiming to be children of Abraham, but not doing the deeds of Abraham http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/does-john-112-13-teach-monergism/
Varnel Watson
Monergism is the position in Christian theology that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about the salvation of an individual through spiritual regeneration http://www.gotquestions.org/monergism-vs-synergism.html
Louise Cummings
I still don’t understand these terms all together. You mad each category clear. But not really for me. We didn’t bring these words up in any of our Bible studies that I know of. One I have heard of before. But I do not believe in unconditional eternal security. I would be afraid The Blood of Jesus would be required at my hands to tell people they could be born again or saved. And lived for the Lord a little while then start sinning again, like before. But because they were saved once. When Jesus was talking to the Churches in Revelation. John wrote to them chapter 3:20-22. Jesus said ( Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone or any man hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and with him, and he with Me. ). ThenHe told the Laodiceans Because you are lukewarm , and neither hot or cold I will spue you out of My mouth. I believe if you are a Christian , live like one. I believe that was the reason the forbidden tree was put in the garden of Eden. Was to give man a choice to listen to God and obey Him or turn Him away and do their own thing. ( my opinion ) l don’t believe God wants to make us serve Him. But because we believe in Him and love Him. I do believe God is Omniscience. All knowing. But still wants everyone to Love and serve Him because He died for us. She’d His Blood for us. Payed my penalty for me. But He gave us a choice to except it. Like He gave the children of Israel a chance to look to the brazen serpent , when bitten by a poison snake. Represented sin. The only way they could live was to look on the brazen. Pointing to theCross in The New Testament. The only way we can have Eternal Life , is look to The Cross. Because Jesus is The Door. The only way in to Eternal life. I don’t know category that puts me in. Lol.
Louise Cummings
I don’t believe in predestination. The way some people does. It’s somewhere in the Bible , I didn’t look it up. He said He is not willing for any to perish. But that all should come to repentance. I believe that’s the same place where He said He is Long suffering. Not willing for any should perish. ( what a great God we serve. ). Willing that none should perish. I got up with a song on my mind this week. I hadn’t heard in a long time. It says , There is a Fountain Filled With Blood. Drawn From Immanuel’s Veins. And sinners plunge beneath the flow. Lose all their guilt and shame or stains I cry just writing about it. Immanuel means God with us. But to think of what a Savior that was willing to become man and walk this lowly path that led to Calvary. Where His Blood Red stains. It Broke All The Chains. And Said That ( I) Could Still. Go Free. Even said He would put me inHis Will. Oh what God has in store for those that Love Him. I heard a saying once that’s so true. He takes a black heart ( meaning sin ) and washed it in Red Blood , and washed it White As Snow. Only God could do that.
Mary Ellen Nissley
This article got it backwards. The verse has it the other way around.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
#1. There was first a choice whether or not to receive Him.
#2. Next, all who received, became sons of God.
#3. And then, it says that the process of becoming a son of God is not by our own will, but by God’s.
But notice that first the choice was made to receive, before the birth happened. It is the birth that was of God’s will. Not the choice to receive.
Because it is not God’s will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
If it were all up to God, every man would repent of their sins.
(I dare you to say it’s not his will for every man to repent!)
But He doesn’t force them to, does he?
Therefore, just because something is God’s will, doesn’t mean it happens. He leaves some things up to us.
Varnel Watson
yeah Ricky Grimsley I dont think so.Christ is Son from Eternity and to Eternity
Ricky Grimsley
Sure this scripture implies synergism since we have “the right” “if we believe” but i dont see how this scripture proves that past eternal sonship.
Charles Page
The salvation context here is synergistic
Varnel Watson
Biblical synergism is the expressed cooperation of God’s will and the will of man working together toward the salvific restoration of the creation
Ricky Grimsley
Im not a Calvinist but its only by grace that we even want to get saved right?
Philippians 2:13 KJVS
[13] For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Charles Page
Semi Pelagianism?
Ricky Grimsley
No. Grace alone. It’s by grace you even want to do good or do good. We cant choose to regenerate if the spirit doesnt draw us?
Charles Page
We can’t choose to be regenerated
Regeneration is a monergistic grace
It’s unmerited favor
Tony Conger
How do we even have the option for salvation if we can’t choose it? Obviously no man comes to God unless the Spirit draws him so the question is does man have the ability to say yes or no
Ricky Grimsley
You cant answer if the question isnt asked?
Charles Page
If you hold to the orthodox doctrine of original sin you understand monergistic regeneration
If you reject OS then you are either Pelagianism or semi-pelagianism
Varnel Watson
If Pentecostal / Charismatic theology rejects OSAS how can it advocate for once delivered always delivered (ODAD) i.e. eternal entire sanctification?
Ricky Grimsley
Osas is ridiculous. Saving a soul from death kinda jumps out at me?James 5:19-20 KJVS
[19] Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; [20] Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Varnel Watson
If you were right Ricky Grimsley a born again Christian can very well have a demon b/c neither eternal security nor entire sanctification guarantees anything ???
Varnel Watson
ask a gnostic like RichardAnna Boyce
Mike Partyka
Can be used but there are others that Calvinist use more often.
Varnel Watson
in what way?
Mike Partyka
Troy Day they would position it as not every person has the right to be a child of God or heir of His promises simply by being born. Only those who are born anew spiritually and trust in Christ will have that right. To become children of God we must be born again John 3 1:14. To be born again is an act of grace alone and only God can bring us to new spiritual life
Varnel Watson
Mike Partyka But this is not really monergism is it? Sounds like a mix up with synergism if you ask me