Jesus said 'the words that I speak unto you - they are spirit and they are life'. Paul also made it clear that if one receives the exact word of the true gospel (rather than, for example, the legal admixture which he opposed in Galatia) then Christ, himself, will be 'formed within'. >My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, [Galatians 4:19 KJV]. This being 'formed within' is the real presence of Christ himself, in Spirit, consequent upon real repentance and a saving faith. The Strict and Particular Baptist movement of the early and middle 1800s, led first by William Huntington and then by William Gadsby, John Warburton and J.C.Philpot, stood strongly for real experience of conviction of sin, repentance of an evangelical kind (not mere legal remorse) and a real closing with Christ himself in felt union. Thereafter came a weakened expectation and a reliance on a 'decision' which fell short of real regeneration. The general term 'easy believism' has been, loosely, used to describe this. I am looking for any gatherings (or even a whole denomination, if there be such) which follow in the footsteps of the Strict and Particular Baptists in this regard, both in doctrine and in practice and in fellowship. My own experience, in the south west of England, is that the denomination called 'Gospel Standard Strict Baptist' is far from its origins in the previous two centuries, though they do, in word, adhere to certain doctrine and practice that is reminiscent of their beginnings. My question is addressed to Reformed and Trinitarian, Baptist Protestantism. But I would not discount Presbyterianism. What is easy believism ?

In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the [Federal Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision) (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally. I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called [*Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SqTGMQEACAAJ) . In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge: > Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration. How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant? But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally. That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: **according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?** What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?

I am convinced that the scriptures teach of a God who is completely sovereign in salvation. I am a monergist. I can cite several passages that make me think this way. I think if you look at some of my answers on this SE, you'll see that I'm a Calvinist. However, this does not mean that I'm a blind Calvinist. I arrived where I did by many years of study and internal deliberation. I am having another internal deliberation at this point. If we examine passages like the first half of Ephesians 2, we see that it was our nature to sin, and that we had the spirit of Satan working within us. In the same place, Paul refers to us as being dead in our sins. By all accounts, it looks to me like plain support of a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine of regeneration. In the first two chapters, we see plainly that we have been unified with Christ: he in our death, and us in His life. Because of this unity we have with Christ, God made us to be alive as He made His Son to be alive (and now, being united with Christ, we are sons and co-heirs with Christ). This all paints a beautiful monergistic picture. However... In the course of my studies this past weekend, preparing for a Bible study that I lead, I happened upon this verse: > In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12 ESV) I get it most of this. Most of it still even paints a monergistic picture, with the phrase "circumcision made without hands," and the whole idea of being "raised" from the dead (the imagery being that it doesn't really involve an act of man's will that he should become alive while he is already dead). But I have a problem with the phrase "raised with him through faith." I see a logical contradiction that I need help working through (and a non-Calvinistic perspective on the passage does not solve the problem). Dead men cannot have faith (again, read Ephesians 2). We need to be made alive. However, this passage cites that we are raised _through faith_. What should I make of this contradiction? I can think of two options: 1. The reformed interpretation of regeneration is wrong. Men have the capacity to believe in God before they are regenerate (Wesley's idea of Prevenient Grace would therefore be inapplicable). This simply cannot be. Again, those with faith were once under Satan's influence. A house divided against itself cannot stand; we cannot serve two masters. There was nothing in us to make us want to believe. 2. Faith must be inherent in regeneration. Not tied to it, but faith would be regenerating. This would mean that predestination would be unto faith, and I've read Reformed authors who would quite disagree with this. I hope I've made the problem clear. I would appreciate some insight. Edit: Please allow me to clarify, I welcome explanations from traditions other than Calvinistic/Reformed. However, I would like these to address the basic doctrinal problem I am discussing. Please see @Eric's comment and my answer to his comment to get an idea of what I mean regarding this.

Acts 8:14-17: >“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.” For someone who claims that baptism fills us with the Holy Spirit (baptismal regeneration), how is this reconciled with this verse, which seems to indicate that baptism did not do anything?

The passages of Luke 3:3 and Acts 2:38 have very similar language and according to Peter in Acts he is baptizing the same baptism as John, only in Jesus name. > Luke 3:3 says, "And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of > repentance for the forgiveness of sins" > Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" Both verses speak about repentance and baptism and both verses say they are "for the forgiveness or remittance of sin" So what does "for forgiveness of sins" mean. Now Acts 2:38 is often interpreted to mean that the act of baptism is necessary to wash away sin, however given the same language in both verses that means that Johns baptism also washes away sin. My question is, can this language be translated any other way that does not imply that baptism actually forgives sins or is when sins are forgiven.

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

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?

I am struggling to reconcile a very strong statement from the Council of Trent pronouncing anathema with a very strong statement from the Apostle John pronouncing deception and lie. Both statements seem very clear and diametrically opposed. Many of the other Epistles also allude to a continued presence of sin but John is so clear that I need not muddy the waters. > To remove all further doubt on the subject, the Council of Trent, after other Councils had defined this, declared it anew, **pronouncing anathema against those who** should presume to think otherwise, or **should dare to assert that although sin is forgiven in Baptism, it is not entirely removed or totally eradicated, but is cut away in such a manner as to leave its roots still fixed in the soul.** To use the words of the same holy Council, God hates nothing in those who are regenerated; for there remains nothing deserving of condemnation in those who are truly buried with Christ by Baptism unto death, "who walk not according to the flesh" but putting off the old man, and putting on the new, who is created according to God, become innocent, spotless, pure, upright, and beloved of God. - The Catechism of the Council of Trent (First Effect of Baptism) > 1 John 1:8: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. The Council of Trent, in this section on baptism, so strongly affirms that sin in a person is utterly remitted and removed that anyone who affirms sin's payment to have been made but sin's presence to remain is pronounced anathema! The Apostle John so strongly affirms the continued presence of sin in himself and his audience that he declares, "If WE say WE have no sin, WE deceive OURSELVES and the truth is not in US." Are there any options other than the Apostle John is anathema or the Council of Trent has deceived itself?

I've search in the internet :
> RE- a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with > the meaning “**again**” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or > with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or > backward motion: regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert. I mean, if it's Adam or Eve - it's easier to understand as it's still logical to think that Adam / Eve was generated at the first time of their existence. So, after they sin, the word regenerated make sense ---> for example : God generate Eve again.... or God generate Eve back to her condition before. But what about for other people, who were created under the power of original sin and spiritually dead? Why is it still "REgeneration" for them, according to Calvinism?

In the Reformed [*Ordo Salutis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis) , or order of salvation, how are Regeneration, Faith, and Union with Christ ordered? (Note that the order of salvation is a logical order, not temporal, and the believer will experience several stages concurrently.) Because of Total Depravity, the doctrine that we are spiritually dead in our sin, I think Regeneration is usually said to precede Faith, because we need to be brought back to spiritual life in order to have faith. Faith is said to precede Union with Christ because it is through Faith that the Holy Spirit unites us the Christ. But isn't it Union with Christ that gives us new life in Christ? Does Union with Christ therefore precede Regeneration? Or is the new life of Regeneration somehow different from the new life we receive through being united to Christ? How is this chicken-and-egg cycle resolved in Reformed Theology?

This question is for Evangelicals who do not hold a Calvinist view Jesus Christ states that the Father alone draws men to Himself. > “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:44‬ ‭ 1. What did Jesus mean by this statement? 1. How is this statement to be understood in the broader context of Scripture such that God remains Sovereign, drawing certain men to Jesus Christ but men still have free will to choose, up until the point of being drawn by the Father to Jesus Christ or thereafter? 1. The response should be able to address/explain Acts 13 why the Jews were not drawn but the Gentiles were and Acts 16 with Lydia who went from hearing to paying close attention, therefore drawn. Or other NT examples. Jesus does add a qualifier > “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ *Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me*.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:45‬ ‭ 1. How can one hear and learn from the Father if first they have not been drawn to Jesus Christ yet but clearly still able to hear and learn from the Father prior to been drawn to believe in Jesus Christ? 1. What is the catalyst that allows them to hear and learn that they might be drawn?

Calvinists often object to the criticism that their doctrine teaches that God forces men to be saved against their will. From what I've read, Calvinism teaches that God changes a man's nature and desire so that it is the man's utmost will that he become saved. In this sense, it seems technically true that Calvinism does not teach that God saves men against their will. However, I'm wondering if this is just a semantic argument on the part of the Calvinist? The doctrine of total depravity teaches that men (even elect men) despise God in their natural state. In order for a man to love God, he must first be supernaturally regenerated. But God-hating men do not desire to be regenerated. It is not their will that their will be changed. It is not their desire to desire God. Thus, even though *salvation* may not be forced, I don't understand how any Calvinist could claim that the act of *regeneration* is not a forceful act accomplished against the will of the recipient, which (at the moment immediately preceding regeneration) is inclined to hate God utterly. Since regeneration leads inescapably to salvation (with some Calvinists even claiming that the two events occur at the same moment in time), it seems like a semantic argument to claim that God doesn't force men to be saved against their will. He may not force them to become *saved*, but if he forces them to become *regenerate* and regeneration leads inescapably to salvation, then are Calvinists simply dodging the issue when they claim that their doctrine does not teach that men are saved against their will? Am I correct in asserting that traditional Calvinist doctrine teaches that regeneration is forceful?

While reading Louis Berkhof's *Systematic Theology*, I noticed an interesting tidbit about the beliefs of "extreme Anabaptists" on regeneration. He argues: > [Regeneration is not] a complete or perfect change of the whole nature of man, or of any part of it, so that it is no more capable of sin, as was taught by the extreme Anabaptists and by some other fanatical sects. ([4.6.C](https://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.vi.vi.html)) From this I gather that these "extreme Anabaptists" believed that at least some part of the "nature of man" was completely, perfectly transformed in regeneration, making the regenerate unable to sin. This does seem outside the norm for Anabaptists, and it makes me wonder: - Who taught this, and when? - Did they consider regeneration to be something instantaneous (as in Reformed theology), or a process (like sanctification)? - Did they believe that the whole nature of man, or only a part of it (soul? spirit?) was transformed?

When do Calvinists consider an elect person to be regenerate? If it is at birth, then is it odd that someone who is "regenerate" is living in sin, up until the point of faith in Christ? And if it is at a later time, such as at faith in Christ, then how is that faith in Christ prompted in an unregenerate person? I may not fully understand the definition of "regenerate" (and particularly its distinction from "salvation"), so answerers would be kind to also explain that definition from a Calvinist perspective. Note: This question arose out of comments made in this answer .

Regeneration of the human spirit is a cornerstone doctrine of the New Testament, taught in Jesus’ famous **‘born again’** discourse with Nicodemus. (John 3) Likewise, St. Paul explains our restoration in scriptures such as Colossians 3:9-10. > “You have **put off the old self** with its practices and have **put on the > new self**, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its > creator.” Given that New Testament revelation finds its fountainhead in the Old Testament, was this experience explicitly promised by the prophets? And where in the Old Testament is the source of the doctrine of Regeneration?

In Paul's epistle to Titus in the third Chapter verses 4 through 7, He is relaying to Titus the change the grace of God makes through Salvation. In verse 5 he states that "he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:4 through 7 >4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, > >5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, ***but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;*** > >6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; > >7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. To what is Paul referring when he says the renewing of the Holy Ghost?

Several different denominations teach that water baptism is a prerequisite for (or is essential for) salvation. What is the biblical basis against this teaching?

> Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1st John 5:1) John seems to be both liberal and absolutistic in his statement here: on one hand, he doesn't add any more prerequisites for a human to be a regenerate (while today's main stream Christianity would most likely add some more like believing that Christ is God, that Christ and God the Father are the same One God, etc.), on the other hand, he says "whosoever", which sounds like he is very explicit about his statement being true for all cases that meet his prerequisite (which is believing that Jesus is Christ). What are the arguments of those who believe that the prerequisite stated here by John is yet not sufficient for being born of God? I know that many Christians don't consider, for example, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be regenerate (because they don't believe that Jesus is the same God as God the Father). However, both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to meet this prerequisite stated here by John.

At what point did Paul become a child of God, born of God? John said that God gave the authority to be the children of God born of God to those who received Christ (John 1:12,13; 1st John 3:1). At what point did Paul become regenerate? Was it at his first encounter with the Lord on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:5,6)? Was it when he was baptized? Did it happen at a different time? Ananias called Paul a brother before Paul was baptized (Acts 9:17, 22:13). What is the meaning of this word, "brother?" Does it infer that Paul had met the qualifications to be called a child of God, born of God, that is written in John 1, or was Ananias using the word "brother" differently, perhaps in the Old Testament sense?

What I mean here by "regenerated" is being born of God, i.e. become a child of God. Has this matter been discussed in Christianity? If the question is too broad, then I am firstly after the protestant-tradition answer here. So, once again: Is it possible to believe in Jesus, pray to Him and be baptized and yet not get regenerated?