It says they were given the right to BECOME children of God. They were not children of God, yet they believed.
Just know John 1:12-13 is another go to verse by the T-crew.
But note the verse before ....
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
The be an honest interpreter of scripture one must take into account the context!!
The connection back to the OT is imperative! This is not about one's personal will, you will notice that Calvinists hyper-individualize text to suit their system.
- not of blood = being a descendant or blood relative of Abraham (Rom. 9:7)
- nor of the will of the flesh = being one who “pursued” or “ran after” the law so as to merit righteousness (Rom. 9:31)
- nor of the will of man = being married or in anyway connected to the patriarchal head
The attempt to dumb down scripture is often in play for those who are making it fit a schema.
Even from the commentators....
Albert Barnes – “Nor of the will of man – This may refer, perhaps, to the will of man in adopting a child, as the former phrases do to the natural birth; and the design of using these three phrases may have been to say that they became the children of God neither in virtue of their descent from illustrious parents like Abraham, nor by their natural birth, nor by being “adopted” by a pious man.”
John Gill – “…nor of the will of man: of the best of men, as Abraham, David, and others; who, though ever so willing and desirous, that their children, relations, friends, and servants, should be born again, be partakers of the grace of God, and live in his sight, yet cannot effect any thing of this kind: all that they can do is to pray for them, give advice, and bring them under the means of grace; but all is ineffectual without a divine energy.”