John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Hello, everyone.... long time no see.

The following is from a minister recounting a discussion he had concerning John 1:12-13 which reads....

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: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

What are your thoughts on this gentleman's position?

"Recently we heard a strange interpretation given to verses 12 and 13 of the first chapter of St. John in a feeble effort to prove that a man is born of God before he receives the Holy Ghost. The twelfth verse says that "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God." Our contention (Jude 3) was that the "power to become sons of God" was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and this we proved by referring to Acts 1:8. But to avert a sudden collapse of this argument the expounder attempted to prove this statement by putting special stress on the word, "Which were born.... of God" The fact that the word "were" was in the past tense seemed to give him a strong point in his favor, that they were born of God before they received power to become sons of God. If they had to be given power to become sons of God after they were born, what were they before they got the power to become sons of God........"

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

They were the sea, the waters; the unenlightened, or "asleep" mass of humanity.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

He was the singularly irrelevant of comment

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

First you receive HIM, then BELIEVE on His name, and THEN He gives us power to become the sons of God. Seems fairly simple to me.

Sounds like someone is trying to read more into it than the passage of scripture was intended... and like they are trying to teach eternal security or the Calvinistic type belief of once saved always saved, and that there are only an intended few that God has chosen. That is not what this verse is stating. There are certain things you do - receive Jesus, believe on His name, and then you receive the power... to become the son of God, and this doesn't happen by the will of the flesh or of man, but of God, by following the channels HE has laid out. This is available to anyone who chooses to come to God this way.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

KeptByTheWord,

Thank you for your thoughts.

"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: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Then you would not say "even to them that believe.... which were born... of God" further defines those who "received him"?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Are you trying to simply better understand this passage, or are you trying to imply a new thought or idea from this scripture?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

My concern for now is how the gentleman quoted at the outset of this thread understood this passage and if others here might agree with him. The person he had confronted believed "even to them that believe.... which were born... of God" further defined those who "received him" in v12. Would you reject this idea as well?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

i don't know, I am not a theologian. Not sure that I really understand the question, other than I am wondering if the person discussing this passage might believe in predestination or perhaps eternal security etc. Other than that, I don't really have much to add other than what I've already said.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Curious what makes you think he might believe in predestination or eternal security... can you elaborate?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Well from a lot of reading that I have done, and certainly not claiming to be an expert in any way, still learning myself... but I think that John Calvin taught that certain people were predestined by God to be saved, and others weren't. I remember thinking when reading this how people could come up with such a belief. But I suppose it is scriptures about the "sons of God" and the thinking that God allowed certain people to be born who were intended to be the sons of God. I don't know all the specifics of what he and others taught on this subject, but maybe you could check into that.

Bottom line, though I don't see eternal security or any of those things in this scripture.

I believe it is like trying to see the forest and can't see the trees - the obvious is clear.

Receive Jesus, and he will give you power to become the Sons of God, by believing on his Name, being born, not of the will of flesh or man, but of God. Jesus also says "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me".

I think from my own personal understanding of this scripture, that it simply means we are born... of God, as many as have received Him, to whom He has given power, and even to them who believe on His name. And perhaps, John was implying here, that believing on his name was as important as receiving and believing in God.

First God chooses His elect according to foreknowledge.

Second, God provides attonement in Christ.

Third, God provides propitiation in Christ.

Fourth, God draws the elect via a prevenient grace in both an outer calling (preaching) and an inner calling (conviction).

Fifth, the elect surrender to God and are converted (Acts 2:38).

Sixth, they are justified by faith.

Seventh, they are regenerated by the Holy Ghost.

Eighth, they are adopted by the living Spirit within crying abba father.

Ninth, they are sanctified by the name and walking after the Spirit.

Tenth, they are victorious in death.

Eleventh, they are glorified and sinless through the Spirit's resurrection power.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Hello Aquila, good to see you. Thank you for your thoughts on the ordo salutis. Though I would point out that theological sequence does not necessitate chronological sequence. There are theological sequences which can take place in the same moment of time. That aside for now, what are your thoughts on the position of the gentleman in my original quote? This gentleman makes an argument and I'm waiting for someone to point out the major flaw in his reasoning. Do you see it?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

I'm not entirely sure about what you're asking.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Does he have a valid argument?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Does anyone understand his argument? This is extremely important to anyone who holds the water and spirit new birth paradigm.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

I do NOT understand his argument. Is he saying that people are born of God BEFORE they have power to be sons of God?,, or is that what he is arguing against?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

I've read it from the beginning 3 times, and the Q now seems to have changed...

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Yes, the author assumes this to be the position of his acquaintance and is arguing against this. The author believes his friend is suggesting that a person can be born of God BEFORE he is given the HOLY GHOST, i.e., the POWER to become a son of God. This is not his friends position at all.

Can anyone tell me what the author's mistake is which 1) makes this discussion somewhat confusing and 2) which makes him completely miss the real point of the passage? The author is making a huge mistake in his interpretation and I'd like to see if someone can recognize it. The mistake he makes is monumental in the history of the UPC doctrine of salvation.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

It would help if you posted the friend's position so we'd have better idea of where the author went wrong.

All that I see is the author's issue with the word "were." He is arguing that his friend used the past tense of "were" to say that we are born of God before we are born of God.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

I will say this and give everyone a chance to figure it out on their own first. The problem lies with the author's understanding of the word POWER. With this clue can you see where he has gone wrong?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Exhousia v. Dunamis? I do not have resources with me. I'll check it out tomorrow.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

An acquaintance attempted to drive home the point that those who 'received [Christ]' in John 1:12 were further defined in v13 as those who were 'born of God.' Unfortunately, the author of this quote mistakenly thought the word "power" [exousia - meaning authority/privilege] in v12 had the same meaning as the word "power" [dunamis - meaning strength/ability] in Acts 1:8. In his response to the concerned brother the author connected the power referenced in Acts 1:8 with the power mentioned in John 1:12. This error made him completely miss the point that those of John 1:12-13 who had received Christ by faith were born of God and given the privilege of sonship. In the author's mind the enabling power [dunamis - strength/ability] of the Spirit (btw, the reception of which he had connected to speaking in tongues) brought sonship. In his confusion, this Oneness Pentecostal author of the early twentieth century drew a non-regenerative / non-salvific operation of the Spirit into the new birth experience. While the prevailing understanding in Pentecostalism at this time was that a reception of the enabling power [dunamis] of the Spirit was a "2nd" spirit baptism or a "2nd" work of grace the author began to consider it as an initial work of the Spirit in being born again.

This author also said, "Very few will agree with us on this subject at the first, but if they will lay aside the doctrine of men, and for a moment remove their thoughts from the abnormal state of the present day Christianity, they will find no trouble in grasping the truth AS IT IS NOW REVEALED to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation."

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Ok, well, amen. I'll avoid any "relevance" jokes, as I see I answered the rhetorical Q earlier, pardon me; but could you possibly restate this? Ty.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Hello Adino, verse 12 puts believing and receiving before becoming sons of God. Verse 13 speaks to those who have believed and receiving and then moved on to becomes sons of God in which John explains that this new birth is not of man but of God. He uses "were" because he is speaking of believers who have already become born again.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

I understand "gave he power to" as meaning " gave them the right to" so that those who believed and received Christ were in a right standing with God or accepted by Go that they might go on to become sons of God through the new birth.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Hello Mizpeh... good to hear from you. So you believe one stands justified in the eyes of God before he is born of God? If justified is he yet condemned until born of God?

While you realize the correct understanding of the word power (exousia) in John 1:12 do you see how the author has mistaken its meaning?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

The identity of the author is our old friend, G. T. Haywood. He was one of the very first, if not the first, to argue that an experience accompanied by speaking in tongues was part of being born again. This he referred to as new truth which "as time rolled on the illumination of the Holy Spirit began to reveal to the church...". Piggybacking on the New Issue controversy which stressed Jesus Name baptism this was Haywood's third leg to the innovative new birth teaching he handed down to so many in Oneness Pentecostalism today.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

I've recently been reading through some of Haywood's writings again and noticed that he was also mistaken in his understanding of Isaiah 28:11-12. Haywood considered "the rest" mentioned in v12 as "full salvation." Of course, he then connected the... stammering lips and another tongue to the Pentecostal tongues experience. He, therefore, saw the tongues experience as necessary to bring "rest" or "full salvation" to the believer. He refers to the connection of "Spirit baptism" evidenced by tongues with full salvation and/or new birth as further "illumination of the Spirit" from which others in greater Pentecostalism began to falter.

Get that.... THEY began to falter because they would not accept his new revelation from heaven.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Interesting.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Would this be akin to justification for the purpose of coming forward and being regenerated?

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

I wonder if you would say how this has edified you, then? If you would deign, ty.

Re: John 1:12-13 discussion
 

Having been raised under church historian, Marvin Arnold, I took great interest in the doctrinal offerings of early Oneness Pentecostal ministers such as G.T. Haywood. Many years ago, Haywood's words...

"Very few will agree with us on this subject at the first, but if they will lay aside the doctrine of men, and for a moment remove their thoughts from the abnormal state of the present day Christianity, they will find no trouble in grasping the truth AS IT IS NOW REVEALED to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation."

.... raised a red flag in my mind in regard to the soteriological position of my youth.

Frank Ewart, another "Pioneer of Oneness Pentecostalism" echoed Haywood's sentiments when he said...

"He [God] first gave the true light to a few, and then signally expressed His approval by a startling revival through the instrumentality OF THE NEW TEACHING."

I simply like to point out how those who first gave us the water and spirit new birth teaching openly considered their innovative doctrinal position on the new birth as NEW and without historic precedent. Also, when we can clearly see mistaken interpretations which helped lead Haywood to his doctrinal conclusions the soundness of his new birth legacy is brought into question by the objective thinker.

It 'edifies' me to know I can help spark deeper consideration into the matter of sound doctrine for ...."It would be a shame for us to have less brothers and sisters than God has sons and daughters."