Evangelical Christians have long been divided by different views on the sovereignty of God in salvation. I am thankful that the FIEC regards this as a secondary issue, and that there is room within our family of churches for both Arminians and Calvinists who hold to our doctrinal basis of primary gospel truths. Personally, however, the common use of the metaphor of  “new birth” to describe salvation in the Bible is a major reason why I was convinced of the Calvinist position, and especially God’s work of “irresistible grace.”

Earlier this week I read an article in the Guardian about a man who is suing his parents for giving birth to him. Raphael Samuel is a 27 year old “antinatalist” from Mumbai. Antinatalists believe that it is morally wrong to procreate, and that a vast amount of human misery could be avoided if people did not exist in the first place. He is suing his parents because he believes that it was wrong for his parents to go ahead and crate him without his consent.

Whilst his position might seem extreme, some Biblical characters do occasionally give voice to antinatalist sentiments, especially when they are experiencing extreme suffering. Job curses the day that he was born (Job 3v1-28), as does Jeremiah (Jeremiah 15v10). The author of Ecclesiastes considers it better to have never been born than to live in this world of meaningless suffering (Ecclesiastes 4v3). However, these are fleeting sentiments of anguish resolved by faith in the good purposes of the creator God and overcome by the confident hope of ultimate resurrection.

However, the complaint that Raphael Samuel makes against his parents reminds us of a very important truth about our salvation. Just as he did not consent to being born, so we do not consent to being “born again”. Our salvation is a sovereign act of God, accomplished without our consent.

Evangelical Christians have long been divided by different views on the sovereignty of God in salvation. I am thankful that the FIEC regards this as a secondary issue, and that there is room within our family of churches for both Arminians and Calvinists who hold to our doctrinal basis of primary gospel truths. Personally, however, the common use of the metaphor of  “new birth” to describe salvation in the Bible is a major reason why I was convinced of the Calvinist position, and especially God’s work of “irresistible grace.”

The Bible uses the idea of birth as a primary paradigm for our conversion and salvation. Every author of a New Testament letter uses the language of “new birth” or “regeneration” to describe our salvation. This language assumes that, prior to this procreative act of God, we were spiritually dead in sin. We could not, and did not, give birth to ourselves.

This is especially central to John’s gospel, where Jesus told Nicodemus “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3v3). John makes clear that a person does not bring about his own “new birth”. This is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit. A person can only be born again by the powerful intervention of God’s active presence:

“Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit” (John 3v6).

As John sets out in his prologue, we are born again by the will of God, and not by our own consent. We become children of God “born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husbands’ will, but born of God.” (John 1v13).

The language of being “born again” has become debased in contemporary culture. Unbelievers use it as a term of derision for a particular kind of enthusiastic Christian, mocking the very idea of conversion. It has become a synonym for superficiality or hypocrisy. However, it seems to me that it its meaning is undermined when Christians speak as if they have brought about their own new birth by choosing to exercise faith in Jesus. When they do this they imply that they have consented to their own birth, which is the exact opposite of the meaning of the metaphor.

Read More