steve wrote:Glenn,
Calvinists use this verse as if it is speaking ONLY of the second birth, and giving the following details about it:
1) It is not of blood
2) It is not of the will of the flesh
3) IT IS NOT OF THE WILL OF MAN
4) It is entirely of God
This they take as a denial of the involvement of human will in conversion—it is all "of God," excluding the exercise of human will.
If, on the other hand, this is what we have been calling a limited negative, then the statement is speaking of two separate births, not one. It would be saying that the people under consideration had not ONLY experienced natural birth (of blood, of the will of the flesh, of the will of man), like everyone else, but they have ALSO experienced a second birth, which was "of God."
In fact Calvinists use this verse as a statement that contrasts the two births - and I think you're doing that too.
Born of blood, of the flesh, of the will of man, in this verse, are references to human birth. We agree. So all it says is that these people are not born of human birth only, but also of God. You can't use the limited negative (not only - but also) to take all (or any) of the attributes of the one birth and apply them to the second. For example, the divine rebirth is certainly not of flesh! So there's really no issue for the Calvinist here, because the verse still ends up saying that the second birth is not of the will of man.
This interpretation seems necessary, since John would otherwise be saying that Christians had never experienced natural birth at all—"These were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man..." which would not be true, since everyone, including Christians, has experienced such a birth. He would be saying that these had not only experienced such a birth, but had also experienced a second birth, which was "of God."
Agreed - as any Calvinist would agree also.
Seen this way, the three phrases, "of blood...of the will of the flesh...of the will of man" would be seen only as references to the first birth, and would not be telling us anything about the second, except that it was a different one.
Then why contrast those elements at all? It seems far more plausible that the author is picking out things in the first birth that are unlike the second birth.
Don't take this as a slight - but be extremely wary of finding new terms (like "limited negative") and using them like a new toy to see what you can get them to do.
That is, they would not be telling us that the second birth did not involve the will of man at all (since the scripture everywhere affirms that man must make a choice—and even Calvinists believe that the will of man is involved after God changes the will). The mention of "the will of man" would be irrelevant to anything John is saying about the second birth, since the phrase relates only to the first birth.
Whether Calvinist or not, the verse has every appearance of contrasting two births.
John's statement could then be paraphrased: "These people's experience was not confined merely to such a birth as involves human bloodlines, fleshly cravings and human motivations, but in addition, they have known a supernatural birth from God [which may or may not have involved human bloodlines, fleshly cravings and human motivations, but that is beyond the range of John's consideration in his statement]."
See the change I made to your comment in square brackets. I think when stated that way, it becomes much clearer what John is doing. He's saying that the new birth is not like the old one. I would think that's a view more or less shared by Arminians and Calvinists about what this verses is doing. How the statement about the human will applies, is a matter of much debate as we know.
So it's really not to the Calvinist's chagrin at all - unless you're able to show a Calvinist that John is leaving human flesh and bloodlines open as possible in the new birth (i.e. he's not ruling it out with this statement).
