[This article]( https://www.gotquestions.org/born-of-water.html) presents a view that to be “born of water and the Spirit” refers to spiritual cleansing. The re-birth, or the new birth, which means to be “born again”, is a spiritual rebirth. Whereas people once-born have physical life, a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses promote full immersion in water for adults who understand the implications of baptism and what it signifies. From your New World Translation, John 3:5 and 7 says this: >Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God… You people must be born again. It is worth noting that whereas Matthew and Luke refer to "the kingdom of God", Matthew uses the expression "the kingdom of heaven" 33 times. The kingdom of God is central to Jesus' teaching. From a Protestant perspective, we understand the two expressions to mean the same thing. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses who have submitted to water baptism deemed to have also been born from the Spirit, that they have been born again, or born from above, and are therefore confident of entering into the kingdom of heaven? Or is being “born again” restricted only to those members of the 144,000 who say they have been anointed and have a heavenly hope?

I have come across this phrase "***A born-again Christian has a new nature that cannot sin***" (or other versions written differently but carrying the same implication). Here is one example from this site and here is another more fulsome treatment from an evangelical perspective. Does this mean a born-again Christian can not sin? If we can still sin, then what is the purpose of that nature if it can not shield us from sin? ***How would/does a nature like this make us different from Abraham, Noah, Job, David or Moses?***

I was raised Christian, but abandoned my faith in my teens due to ridicule from atheists. I've tried multiple times to return in my adult life, but honestly I just couldn't accept what was required of me. If I became one of the local sects, I would have to become a homophobic Trump-supporting evangelical. I've been trying to read the bible for myself, so I can finally know for myself what it actually says. Its quite a lengthy text btw. However, would this really be enough for me to become Christian again? The main problem I've been having is I don't know what I would be allowed to do anymore. If you trust the internet, you're pretty much not allowed to do anything unless it constitutes worshiping god, seriously. I look up any question, from video games to Halloween, I just find extremist content saying its wrong. I realize I'll have to change, yes, but how to change? Besides, there's also the issue that I don't want to become a bigoted extremist. I know not all Christians are like that, but finding their opinions seems nigh impossible. As I've said, I look up anything on the internet I just find extremist content essentially claiming that you have to be an old-school puritan minus the dress.

John 5:24 (ESV) > Truly truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and he does not come into judgement but has passed from death to life. The verse states that when one hears Jesus's words and believes, one "has passed", implying at the time of the hearing and believing, from death to life. Unless I am mistaken it also seems "from death to life" is the same as "being born again" mentioned previously in John 3. Does this verse state that we are born again at the time we hear and believe in Christ?

According to Christians who believe that salvation can be lost: - What is eternal life? Is eternal life attained *now* (in this life / before death) or at the resurrection? - What is spiritual rebirth? When a Christian is born again, does he/she attain eternal life at that moment? - If salvation can be lost, can salvation be regained? Can we be saved multiple times? If so, would that mean that we can have multiple "born again experiences"? _____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89603/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89602/50422

I'd like to start this question by citing the definition of *intellectual assent* provided by the article [*Is faith intellectual assent?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/intellectual-assent.html) : > **To give intellectual assent is to agree with something on a factual basis**. Faith involves intellectual assent, and intellectual assent is an important part of faith, but faith is much more than knowing facts. Faith does not mean that you suspend your intellect. Someone once defined faith as “believing what you know isn’t true.” Such a suspension of the intellect is not faith! Rather, faith is committing yourself to something that you believe to be true. In other words, intellectual assent represents an epistemic state characterized by agreement with specific factual propositions about reality. But instead of conceptualizing intellectual assent as a binary condition (agreeing versus disagreeing), a more nuanced perspective views it as a value within a spectrum, a percentage, or a continuous scale between 0 and 1. In addition, it is crucial to recognize that Christianity encompasses a collection of multiple propositions, necessitating an even more nuanced approach that acknowledges individuals may allocate varying degrees of intellectual assent to each proposition. For instance, a Latter-day Saint may strongly assent to a distinct set of propositions, differing significantly from the propositions to which a Reformed Calvinist might offer stronger intellectual assent. Or take, for example, propositions like *The Earth is roughly 6000 years old,* which might garner robust intellectual assent from a Young-Earth Creationist but receive less agreement from someone adhering to the mainstream scientific consensus on the age of the Earth. The challenges associated with intellectual assent might perhaps be simplified by narrowing down the set of factual propositions that need to be believed to a fundamental core, akin to C. S. Lewis's [*Mere Christianity*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity) . However, even within this simplified framework, the extent of intellectual assent to Christianity's core tenets would still exhibit a spectrum, contingent upon the individual's assessment of the available evidence. For instance, the evaluation of historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus, arguably the most pivotal proposition in Christianity, requires careful consideration. A highly recommended resource for this examination is [The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History](https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Apologetics-Polemics-History/dp/0567697568) by Dale Allison. As one of the reviewers aptly expressed: > “This is a book of massive erudition around the resurrection, the real events that may well lie behind it, and how to read its popular New Testament residues and cross-cultural parallels. Allison engages the full power and depth of contemporary biblical criticism to show that the scriptural accounts are relatively thin but nevertheless intriguing documents for the responsible historian and can reasonably be read faithfully or skeptically. The originality, even genius, of the book lies in how he then turns to other independent literatures to “think in parallels,” playing, for example, well-documented Marian apparitions and angelic, bereavement, and near-death contacts off the early New Testament accounts or the Buddhist rainbow body off the empty tomb, always with a double refusal to fall into either easy debunking reduction or naïve literalist belief. **The result is a shocking book that troubles one's certainty, whatever that certainty happens to be, and advances a profound humility before one of the most important mysteries of the history of religions**. It turns out that the questions of “what really happened” or, more basic still, “what a body is” are much more complicated than is normally thought or believed.” ―*Jeffrey J. Kripal, Associate Dean of the School of Humanities and J. Newton Rayzor Professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought, Rice University, USA* But moving beyond mere intellectual assent, with all its associated epistemological challenges, there is also the concept of the "new birth" or the "born-again experience." Unlike a purely intellectual exercise, this transformative phenomenon is considered supernatural, an event that believers are expected to undergo at some point in their lives. It appears to me that the extent to which one intellectually assents to certain propositions can be addressed intellectually through the practical study of evidence, arguments, and counter-arguments. However, triggering a supernatural experience, such as the "born-again" encounter, is not something for which I can discern an obvious method, if a method even exists at all. Given these considerations, my question for Evangelical Protestants is as follows: How do Evangelical Protestants understand the relationship between intellectual assent to core beliefs and the experience of being "born-again"? Specifically, is there consensus within your faith tradition on whether a high degree of intellectual assent is a prerequisite for undergoing a "born-again" experience, and if so, are there established guidelines regarding the process leading to this experience?

This question is based on four texts dealing with this matter. ***John 3:3*** where Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he **cannot see** the kingdom of God." ***John 6:40*** where Jesus promised that "every one which **seeth the Son**, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." ***John 20:29*** where Jesus said to Thomas, "Thomas, because thou **hast seen me**, thou hast believed; blessed are they that **have not seen**, and yet have believed." ***1 Peter 1:8***, speaking about believing Jesus, "Whom having **not seen**, ye love; in whom though now **ye see him not**, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." All from the A.V. and bold emphases mine. What kind of 'seeing' is this? It's clearly not seeing material things (like a literal kingdom on earth, or a person visible to our eyes.) Though people at first did literally see Jesus and believed in him, he spoke of those ***not seeing him, yet being begotten again***' with a heavenly inheritance (1 Peter 1:3-4). Only those who believe what Jesus said about being 'born again' as an adult (as he said to Nicodemus) are being asked, which effectively rules out many Christians who believe babies or little children are 'born again' when baptized as such. In other words, answers are not sought from those who equate membership in a religious organization with being born again and/or seeing the kingdom of God. **So, what kind of 'seeing' is this, and how is 'seeing Jesus' key to this?**

This question is for Protestant Trinitarians and addresses the divide among the various denominations of Protestantism, particularly Presbyterianism, Congregationalism and Anglicanism, who baptise infants rather than adults. I was, myself, 'baptised' as an infant, but late in infancy as my father was a Church of Scotland clergyman in the remote Highlands of Scotland and was not permitted to baptise his own child, so the matter was delayed and I remember it vividly at the age of five. But after conversion at the age of sixteen I volunteered to be baptised in a Baptist assembly (and my father graciously attended). Among all the arguments to and fro about circumcision and 'sanctification' it is still not clear to me if those who baptise infants actually claim that the child is 'born again' in the various senses in which that term is used in the New Testament, that is to say : born from above (*anothen*); born anew (*anagennao*) ; born again (*paligenesis*) ; born of God ; and born of water and Spirit. What exactly do paedobaptists believe is happening (in New Testament terms) during the ritual of placing water on a baby? And if they regard it so (that this is genuine 'new birth') then can such infants not be recovered if they (initially) reject the gospel in childhood since that would be regarded (in New Testament terms) as being a castaway, having been 'born again' only to reject Christ?

I will quote a few points that I found from Regeneration in the Old Testament. > 1. It can be clearly demonstrated that regeneration is an occurrence in both the Old and New testaments > 2. But the INDWELLING of the corporate body by the Spirit presupposes the resurrection Also from another source with the same title Regeneration in the Old Testament > it is important to note that one could be born of the Spirit and yet > not be indwelled by the Spirit The question :
*Is there a different result from the one who already born of the Holy Spirit BUT NOT indwelled by the Holy Spirit — versus — the one who already born of the Holy Spirit AND indwelled by the Holy Spirit ?*

I don't know if there are statistics on this, or if the answer depends on the denomination, but are Christians usually consciously aware of the first time they received the Holy Spirit? Is the reception of the Holy Spirit for the first time an unmistakable, life-changing, [self-evident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence) experience/event that most Christians can easily remember, the date of which they can easily pinpoint on a calendar? I'm interested in an **overview of Christian viewpoints** on these questions. ____ Related denomination survey questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/79507/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91868/50422 Related hermeneutical question: - [Is Paul implying in Acts 19:2 that the reception of the Holy Spirit for the first time is a self-evident experience for the new believer?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/77330/38524)

Many passages seem to suggest that one becomes born again and obtains eternal life on this side of eternity (before death). For example, regarding eternal life, the Apostle John said: > 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, **whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life**. He does not come into judgment, **but has passed from death to life**. [John 5:24 ESV] > 36 **Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life**; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. [John 3:36 ESV] > 11 And this is the testimony, that **God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son**. 12 **Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life**. [1 John 5:11-12 ESV] Notice how John seems to refer to eternal life as a present reality that we already possess, right now, if we have believed in the Son of God. John Piper arrives at a similar conclusion: > Stage 5: We Have Eternal Life Now > > **In believing we have eternal life NOW, not just in the future**. > > In John 5:24 Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life [not "will have" but "has"—now!], and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." **In other words eternal life is not something you wait for after death. It is something you have NOW if you are believing in Jesus**. > > **Believing is the link that unites us with the life of God in Christ now**. **If we have Christ, we have his life now. And his life is eternal**. > > [...] > > Stage 7: Not Interrupted at Death > > **Eternal life is not interrupted at death.** > > In John 11:25–26 Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die." I think what he means is this: **Everyone who has eternal life by faith will never have that life stripped away from him; even if he dies, he will live. Physical death will not turn eternal life into temporary life**. > > [(source)](https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-destiny-eternal-life) _____ John 17:3 sheds further light on the true meaning and implications of eternal life: > 3 And **this is eternal life**, that **they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent**. [John 17:3 ESV] Eternal life thus entails knowing both God and His Son, Jesus Christ. But then John explains to us in other passages what it means to know God and how this knowing happens in this life. If we know God in this life, then from John 17:3 it would seem to follow that we also obtain eternal life in this life: > 7 Beloved, let us love one another, **for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God**. 8 **Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love**. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that **God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him**. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; **if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us**. [1 John 4:7-12 ESV] > 23 Jesus answered him, “**If anyone loves me**, he will keep my word, **and my Father will love him**, **and we will come to him and make our home with him**. [John 14:23 ESV] _______ Similarly, regarding spiritual rebirth, Peter said (note the present & present perfect tenses): > 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, **he has caused us to be born again** to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. [1 Peter 1:3-5] > 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 **who through him are believers in God**, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. > > 2 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 **since you have been born again**, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; > [1 Peter 1:20-23] And a similar idea was expressed by the Apostle Paul (once again, note the present & present perfect tenses) > 17 Therefore, **if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation**. **The old has passed away; behold, the new has come**. [2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV] > 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 **So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus**. > > 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, **but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life**, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. [Romans 6:10-13 ESV] _________________ **Questions** According to [Christian mortalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) (a.k.a. 'Soul sleep' advocates): - Are we born again in this life? - Does eternal life begin in this life? - If so, what happens when we die? Does eternal life continue *while* we are physically dead (i.e. between death and the resurrection)? Can a Christian be dead (biologically/physically) and have eternal life simultaneously? - Does eternal life begin in this life, stop when we die and resume when we are resurrected? If so, how can it be eternal if it has gaps? _______ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89603/50422 - [When does eternal life begin? When we believe in the Son (1 John 5:11-12, John 3:36, 5:24) or on Judgement Day (Matthew 25:31-46)?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74395/38524) - [Does it follow from John 17:3 that the wicked will cease to exist (since they won't have eternal life)?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74380/38524) - [What does "born again" from John 3:3 mean?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/373/38524)

In the New Testament we find expressions such as being "born again", being "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and being "filled with the Holy Spirit". I can't pinpoint specific denominations, but in conversations with Christians I've noticed that some of them interpret them as having different meanings. For example, some claim that all Christians by definition are born again, but only a few are baptized in the Holy Spirit, whereas others think that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. Likewise, some claim that being baptized in the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit are interchangeable expressions, whereas others affirm that these expressions indicate completely different experiences. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about: (https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/there-difference-between-being-baptized-holy-spiri/) , (https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/baptism-with-the-holy-spirit/16-is-the-baptism-with-the-spirit-the-same-as-the-filling-of-the-spirit.cfm) , (https://www.prmi.org/baptized-with-or-filled-with-the-holy-spirit/) , (https://www.faithpca.org/blog/is-there-a-difference-between-being-born-again-and-receiving-the-holy-spirit) . What is the biblical basis for interpreting the expressions "born again", "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and "filled with the Holy Spirit" as different experiences?

There are several questions on Christianity Stack Exchange about being born again (or born from above) and how this relates to baptism, including infant baptism. However, the question I have been asked to answer is specifically about the teaching of the Anglican Church (North America) on what it means to be born again. The main biblical passage on the subject is to be found in John 3:3-7: >I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ ‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, “You must be born again”. From a Reformed Protestant perspective the new birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, 18). It is a spiritual event and is not physical. It transforms the Christian who becomes a child of God and is adopted into God’s family as expressed in John 12:12-13: >But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The purpose of my question is not to argue about what being born again means, or whether it is essential to be baptised in water (either as an infant or as an adult). I simply need to understand what the Anglican Church teaches about being born again and would appreciate any links to official articles that provide a summary.

Many think they are 'born again' when they are baptised on receiving the Holy Spirit as a gift from God. However, it seems apparent from the scriptures that being 'born from above' happens at our transformation at Christ's return. In this life we are given a 'deposit', a 'pledge', a 'guarantee' only. >And God has prepared us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a pledge of what is to come. 2 Cor 5:5 >he has identified us as his own by placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts as the first installment that guarantees everything he has promised us. 1 Cor 1:22 >Don't be astonished that I told you, 'All of you must be born from above.' John 3:7 >Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. John 3:6 >unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 >flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor does decay inherit immortality. 1 Cor 15:50 ( 'born from above' is the translation commonly rendered 'born again') What scripture supports being 'born from above' in this life?

Just a simple question: is the biblical idea of being born again compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?

Has the term **"born again"** always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church? St. Irenaeus (202) wrote the following in 185, which many claim it refers to infant baptism: > **Irenaeus, c. A.D. 185:** > > He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are **born again** to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission … (Against Heresies II:22:4 ) The article on infant baptism from this site claims that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians. > Note here that the term **"born again"** was synonymous with baptism to early Christians. That really didn't change until the time of the pietists in the 17th century. Is there any historical evidence to support the contrary of this statement in the Early Church or the Church Fathers?

A Catholic answer to this question regarding instances of animal-like behaviors in spiritual movements in history included reference to the Loudon possessions in 1634 in France in which a group of nuns were possessed: > The nuns claimed the demon Asmodai was sent to commit evil and impudent acts with them. During questioning about the supposed evil spirit thought to be possessing them, the nuns gave several answers as to who caused its presence: a priest, Peter, and Zabulon. > > The nuns' increasingly extreme behavior: shouting, swearing, barking, s etc. drew a considerable number of spectators. A comment questioned the implications for the salvatory state of the nuns: > An interesting thing is that the Scripture strongly indicates that born-again believers (indwelt by the Holy Spirit) cannot be possessed by demonic spirits, so what does that indicate for the Nuns? The responding comment was that Catholic exorcists and Catholic hagiography indicate differently: > Catholic exorcists would genuinely disagree with that opinion. This is not the place to start an argument, on this subject. Catholic hagiography actually supports it, as happened to even a few canonized saints. The Devil hates the truth! My question is: Does the Catholic Church actually teach that believers who are indwelt by the 3rd person of the Trinity can still be demon possessed? Do Catholics have reason to fear that they might get possessed?

I understand this question can be approached from different denominational positions, depending on how one interprets John 3:3-5. > Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of > God unless they are born again." "How can someone be born when they > are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time > into their mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "Very truly I > tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of > water and the Spirit." > — Gospel of John, chapter 3, verses 3–5, NIV

Many Protestant Christians believe that you become born again as soon as you believe on Jesus Christ. Many believe that this teaching is clear in the opening verses of John chapter 3. How did this teaching get developed? Who started it? I'm not asking whether any church believes that a person becomes born again by believing in Jesus Christ. I want to know how the idea developed that born again was something that happened at one's first faith in Jesus, and not, for instance, at a later time in the spiritual journey. I'm acutely aware that I've accepted this teaching without question, probably as a result of group-think and not from personal theological study. Jesus doesn't plainly say that born again happens when you first believe on Him, so where did that teaching come from? An acceptable answer would be to say who developed the interpretation that Jesus' usage of born again takes place at the time when one first received Christ. Another acceptable answer would be to trace the development of the idea.

It is not uncommon for believers to be faithful for years, but "fall away", only to return years later with a reaffirmation of faith. Often this is common with teens who have a "wild" 20's and 30's, but return to the church in their middle age. But it is also plenty common outside of those specific ages. Once returned to the fold, these new-old-believers often want and attain a *second* baptism, as a public show of their return to the faith. Are there any Denominations which address a believer's second baptism? What is an overview of the beliefs on this common occurrence? ---------- Note: This question is about *adult* believers who've been baptized, leave the faith, but return and desire a second baptism. This question is not about a believer's desire to be baptized despite having been by their parents as an infant.