[size=-1]The sentence, "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man," does not refer to salvation but to physical birth. "Born of blood" refers to the ordinary means through which humans are brought into the world physical birth. The "will of the flesh" refers to sexual desire. The "the will of man" refers to physical sexual intercourse that produces procreation. That is, two people decide to get married, and have children. [/size]
[size=-1]It was not God's sovereignty in unconditional election that John was addressing in this passage at all, nor the lack of man's free choice. It was purely a contrast between the "natural" ("born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man") and the "supernatural" ("but of God").[/size]
[size=-1]The Context[/size]
[size=-1]John 1:6-13[/size]
[size=-1]6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.[/size]
[size=-1]7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.[/size]
[size=-1]8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.[/size]
[size=-1]The above underlined statement flatly contradicts the Calvinist idea that God's purpose is only to save a select few. John says exactly the opposite. John the Baptist came to bear witness to the Logos SO THAT "all men through Him might believe." Not some men, not only the elect, but "all men." There is absolutely no warrent for suggesting that "all men" refers to the elect in this context. That this refers to everyone is proven by the following verse:[/size]
[size=-1]9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.[/size]
[size=-1]Had John said merely "every man" (cf. Heb. 2:9) that would be weighty enough. But, by adding "which cometh into the world" John was clearly indicating EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING THAT COMES INTO THE WORLD BY HUMAN PROCREATION. The phrase, "cometh into the world" can refer only to physical birth, since that is the only way humans come into the world. Every person that is born naturally (of blood, by the will of man, etc.) is "lightened" by the Logos so that "all men through Him might [not shall] believe." The verb "[/size]pisteuswsin[size=-1]" (might believe) is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood indicates probability or objective possibility, pointing to the purpose or desire of God, not to the final result. If Calvinism were true, then John should have used the indicative mood, and should have refered only to the elect, not "all men." By using the subjunctive mood, John indicates that all men have the opportunity to believe, but not that all will believe.[/size]
[size=-1]10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.[/size]
[size=-1]11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.[/size]
[size=-1]In verse 11, the words, "He came unto His own," refer to His coming unto His own CREATION (the world - as in the previous verse) not to the Jews. The words "His own" in the first part of verse 11 are in the neuter gender, and refer back to the "world" that was "made by Him." But the words "His own" in the last phrase are in the masculine gender. The proper interpretation is that Jesus came to His own creation (the world made by Him), and His own (people - Jews) received Him not.[/size]
[size=-1]That the Jews did not receive Him indicates an act of their will, that is they REJECTED the "light" given to them, and RESISTED God's grace to them. As Stephen accused the Sanhedrin, "ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." And as Paul said of the Jew in Rom. 2, "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." Yet, these are the same persons whom Paul rhetorically asked, "despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" The point is that those whom Paul said would end up in the wrath of God are the same people God was leading to repentance through His goodness and forebearance! So much for the idea that God calls only the elect![/size]
[size=-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:[/size]
[size=-1]Those who "received Him," refers to those who did not resist Him, but submitted to Him. To these people who received Him, through an act of their will, He gave the right to become sons of God. The last phrase proves that salvation comes AFTER believing, and as a RESULT of believing. Even to THEM who believe in His name. We could also say, God gave BELIEVERS the right to become sons of God. [/size]
[size=-1]13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.[/size]
[size=-1]Our translation of this verse...differs from the NKJV by one crucial word. Whereas most Bibles use the plural, "who were born...", we have the singular, "who was born." The reason for this difference is a variant reading in some of the early manuscripts of John's Gospel. Before examining this variant reading, and its implications, let me first offer our interpretation assuming that the NKJV (plural) reading is what John wrote.[/size]
[size=-1]Verse 9 states clearly that everyone born into the world through human procreation is given the "light" that Christ brings. But, in verse 13, only SOME of those born of the flesh become "sons of God" (those in the previous verse who "received Him" and "believed on His name"). Therefore, when John described this kind of "birth," he indicated that it is "not of blood [through the birth canal], nor the will of the flesh [sexual desire], or of the will of man [the act of intercourse], but of God." That it is according to the "will of God" in no way implies selective election of individuals, but refers to the whole plan of God to redeem mankind through supernatural means. That is, the whole plan of the salvation of mankind is according to the will of God. Even if the plural reading is adopted, this passage does not support Calvinism.[/size]
[size=-1]The Textual Variant[/size]
[size=-1]This verse was cited six times by early Christian writers from the first three centuries. It was cited by Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian. In every case, they understood the verse to refer to the birth of Christ, not to believers' "new birth." In fact, Irenaeus cited the verse three times, and in all three passages the point he was making depended on that reading. For example, "... that he is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider him as a mere man,: for not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the will of God, was the Word made flesh; and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same."[/size]
[size=-1]It is also weighty evidence that this reading (singular referring to Christ) is found in both Greek (Irenaeus & Origen) and Latin (Tertullian) writers from the second and early third centuries. Both Greek and Latin copies of John's Gospel were extant at the time. To be found in both Greek and Latin copies in the mid second century indicates a VERY early common source, long before the earliest surviving copy of John was made. These writers' quotations of this verse are at least as old as the earliest Greek manuscripts we have of John's Gospel. That this reading is the earliest, comes from a wide geographical area, and is found in both languages in which John's Gospel had been copied, is reason enough for adopting this reading. But, there is more! [/size]
[size=-1]In his Epistle, The Flesh of Christ, ch. XIX, Tertullian (2nd cent.) wrote that the Valentinian gnostics had altered this verse in some copies to read plural, "who WERE ... born." Tertullian had a lot to say in several passages about the tampering with the text by certain gnostic groups, naming names, and giving examples of corruptions. Tertullian also agreed with our interpretation of the words, "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man," that this refers to physical sexual activity and human procreation. In the following quote from Tertullian, notice it was the Valentinain gnostics whom he charged with this alleged corruption, and the reason why they altered the text indicating that the "elite elect" thinking was a part of Valentinian Gnosticism.[/size][size=-1]"What, then, is the meaning of this passage, "Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?" I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural)" Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," as if designating those who were before mentioned as "believing in His name," in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, "He was born of God." And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being "born of blood" but only the matter of the seed,' which, as all know, is the warm blood as converted by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman's blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord's birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, "the will of man and of the flesh"), not His nativity from a woman's womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of Gods descended into a woman's womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process, much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one."[/size][size=-1] (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, xix)[/size]
[size=-1]The internal evidence also weighs in favor of the singular reading. The statements immediately before and after verse 13 refer to Christ. Literally translated as follows: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become sons of God, to those who believe in the name of Him who was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (vss. 12-14).[/size]
), I'm going to do something I don't normally do: having really put some thought into this whole issue of the new birth and OT saints, I'm going to have to completely reverse my position. While cutting the grass, I realized that my acceptance of the view that the OT saints were reborn was based on what I now believe to be a faulty understanding of what being reborn really means. Understood in the light that I see it now, I believe it is impossible that any of them could have been born again. However, the reasoning that led to this conclusion may be different from how others came to it (or didn't come to it). I will try and explain later. But anyway, as of now, I do not believe any of the OT saints, including John the Baptizer, were ever born again before they died. However, I should clarify that at the resurrection of the dead, I believe they will all be raised as regenerated members of the Body of Christ (since I believe the Church has always consisted of both OT and NT saints). 
Why can't you just read it for what it says, Ben??? The Begotten of God believe because they are begotten, and it is those to whom God gives the authority to become sons of God. Those believing in His Name were (beforehand) begotten, which is the reason they can and do believe in His Name.
