I am religous, I believe in God and go to church faithfully. I am dating a girl who is a Born Again Chrisitian. Things are going great but she wants me to convert to be a Born Again Christian. I respect her religon but convert? I am the way I am because I was raised going to Church and believing in God.
My little research has shown that being a Born Again Chrisitian is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. I have already done that and I am not a "Born Again Christian".
Do you guys have any input or similar situations?
tag cuz I don't get it either.
Me thinks that some people need to have other people do the same things they did to reassure their beliefs somehow..
But if you're already a christian, how much more of a christian can you become? lol...
How can one still with faith be born again?
Wouldn't one need to lose their faith, then re-discover their faith to be born again?
It sounds like you two need to clearly define terms.
For example, you said, "... she wants me to convert to be a Born Again Christian."
"Born Again" doesn't refer to a particular religion or denomination. Born again is a state of being in which one has accepted Jesus by faith as the atonement for their sins, and has repented from their previous life and is walking in new life in the spirit.
Personally, I became a Christian and was born again when I was 26. 11 years later I went to my 20th high school reunion. Those people remembered the Brohawk from back in our school days, but that guy doesn't exist anymore. I am a new person. The old man was left behind.
That doesn't mean I don't have struggles along the way, but I am on a different path frmo back then.
I used to be lord over my life. Now I have submitted to the Lordship of Jesus.
If you have accepted Jesus as your savior and repented of your old life, walk it out. The evidence will be apparent to her.
Thanks guys. It is just a bit confusing for me.
Brohawk that helped put it in perspective.
All 'born again' means to me is that someone has followed the Words of Christ, given to Nicodemus, found in the Gospel of John, Chapter 3, in Verses 1 through 21.
Specifically, in Verses 3, 4, and 5, where Jesus actually uses the phrase, 'born again.'
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Simply put, you are 'born again' by being baptized of water and of the Spirit.
It's a formula that is as old as His Church.....
Exactly - if a person has accepted Christ, and has never lost that faith, how can they be born again? Wouldn't you agree that a person would need to fall away from Christ and live without Christ in their life, only to later "re-discover" Christ be actually born-again?
I also think this premise would apply to non-Christians, or those not really exposed to Christ, that when they are educated in Christ and accepte Christ, then they would be born-again.
But a person who never lost faith in Christ, cannot (IMO) be born-again because they never lost faith in Christ. Maybe its all semantics.
Where in John 3 does it say anything about baptism?
It all goes back to the Killing of the "Old Man" and the rebirth of the New Man or being Born again
Your GFs point is that she does not want to be UnEqually Yoked, She sounds like she want to live for Christ and does not want a FAMILY SPIRITUAL LEADER which is what this husband is, to be a stumbling block instead of a support.
Question (or Hijack however you want to look at it)
If a person Truly does become Born Again and is transformed through the Holy Spirit, would that count as the "First Death" spoken of to John in Revelations?
What does 'born of water' mean to you?
The amniotic fluid that surrounds each child in the womb?
Then all of us were 'born of water' in that sense, and Jesus was being just a bit disingenuous in His reply to Nicodemus, who was asking a serious question concerning a serious subject - Eternal Life.
Nope, Jesus was, as always, saying it just the way it should be said....
And His Words of Life were echoed later in St. Peter's answer to the crowd at Pentecost, who asked, 'Men and Brothers, what shall we do'?
'Repent and be baptized every one of you...', replied St. Peter, and 3,000 souls were baptized and added to the Church on the Day of Its Establishment.
That's History, my dear friend.
The History of His Church.
Not starting an argument on the role of baptism (even though I think only Spirit Baptism is essential for salvation), but the combination of "born of water AND the Spirit" with "born again" leads me to understand that the first phrase speaks of physical birth, and the second to spiritual birth. So "born of water" is physical birth (amniotic fluid), and born of the Spirit is the second birth.
But agreeing with most here, being "born again" isn't about being associated with a particular church. Ask her why she thinks you're not born again. Just callin' yourself a "born again Christian" doesn't make a lick of difference. Neither does "being religious and going to church".
OK, I'm with you when you suggest that Jesus was not talking about natural/physical water, meaning amniotic fluid. Where you lose me is when you then say the water he's talking about is natural/physical water used for sprinkling/dunking/immersion. It's still natural water. Whether you're talking about amniotic fluid or baptismal water, it's still just water.
"Water of life," "Living water," "Clouds without water", what's all this talk about water in the scriptures? Somehow, I think we might get a little insight if we look at John 7:38-39:
"38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit . . . ) . . . "
Water in the scriptures represents spirit. But obviously, there are different depths of spirit — remember Ezekiel's vision of the water surrounding the temple and the different depths, leading up to water to swim in? — Jesus brought a different depth of spirit. What do you think the message was when Jesus turned water into wine? Was that just a parlor trick? No, he was sending a message that there was a deeper depth of spirit available to man. It's significant that the water he transformed was the water of purification after the manner of the Jews. That water — the water that was mixed with the ashes of a red hefer — was for a ceremonial washing. But Hebrews tells us that those natural acts never made the Jews perfect as pertaining to the conscious but the bringing in of a better hope did. That was the deeper water (actually grace , usually pictured by blood or wine) that Jesus brought.
What Jesus was telling Nicodemus was that he needed the water — the depth of spirit he was in under the Law, honoring God and seeking after him — but that he also needed a deeper depth of spirit. Nicodemus was a religious man but he needed to move on. Going back to Ezekiel's vision, Nicodemus was wading around in knee deep water. He needed to move on out to the water up to his loins. Only then could he get into the water to swim in. And none of this, my friend, has anything to do with natural/physical water — neither the water of the womb or baptismal water. Remember what Jesus told Nicodemus: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
So, back to baptism, what do you think happens when a person is baptized? What changes in a person's life when they are immersed (or dunked or sprinkled) in water? Is that physical act somehow magical? Is that like the Catholic transformation of wine into the blood of Christ? Does something mystical take place?
No, baptism was a sign given to the Jews (after all, the Jews seeketh after a sign). And what was the sign? Was John's message that all their sins were washed away and that they were cleaned up? What Bible have you been reading? John's baptism never made anyone whole. As he said, I indeed baptize with water but one greater than me cometh. John knew that his ministry (a ministry of PREACHING repentence and giving the sign of baptism) was only to bring people to Christ.
So, what was John's sign? Do you think people came out of the Jordan River clean? No, the scriptures tell us it was a river that flooded twice a year. Have you ever seen a flood? Do you see much clean water there? Ask anyone who has made a pilgrimage to Jordon to be baptised. Ask them if they came out clean.
John was telling people that they were dirty and needed to repent. That is the message of baptism. When people came out of the River Jordon they were DIRTY. Baptism — as it was shown by John anyway — was a symbolic act that recognized that a person's life has been full of sin. It is supposed to be a recognition that the person is ready to receive the redemption that Christ could bring. So, in that sense, baptism is necessary for salvation but it is only the spiritual baptism of REPENTENCE, not any natural dunking. If we understand the picture, we don't actually need to do the dunking/immersion/sprinkling.
Did Christ baptize? No, the scriptures tell us he didn't. Why? Because repentence was John's work. Jesus' work was to baptize us with the holy ghost and fire. That's God's spirit and his word. It is the receiving of THAT baptism that saves us.
You mentioned Peter. You do realize that in Acts 11 Peter gets the witness that it's NOT the baptism of water that saves us. It is the baptism of holy ghost and spirit ( "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts 11:16).
That's why Peter wrote (in 1Pet 3:21), " The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Yes, baptism saves us but it is NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh — that would be the water baptism/baptism of repentence that John brought — but the answer of a good conscience — that would be us mixing our faith with the word and spirit (fire and holy ghost) that Christ brought.
Many people have been water baptized and it did nothing for them. No outward/natural/physical act will ever give us salvation. It is only a spiritual "work" that will save us. You or I or anyone can go get dunked in a filthy muddy river if we want to experience a real baptism. That will give us the SIGN that we need to repent. But it's still just water and it's still just a sign. The hard work of actually crucifying our old man and growing a new one remains.
I think that's right on one level. For another layer on it see my lengthy response above . . .
Still, the scriptures tell us not to forsake the assemblying together. There's a lot of good that comes from being a part of a body of believers . . .
I would hope so.
Yes, it's still 'water', but the act of obedience represented by being plunged beneath it is its significance.
We are united with Christ in His Death because we are baptized by being placed 'in like figure' with Jesus in His Burial.
Because His Disciples baptized in His Name....far more than even John the Baptist baptized.
See John 4:1-3...
When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
Why didn't Jesus baptize anyone?
Think about why St. Paul later said that he was glad that he baptized none but a few in 1 Corinthians 1:13-15
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
It is very likely that Jesus baptized no one simply because if He had, those whom He baptized would think their baptism at the Saviour's Hand was better than others'.
But He taught His Disciples, and us, to baptize everyone who believed on Him...
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:15-16
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19-20
Yes, so what?
Many people have had Faith and then it died away.
Many people have believed and then gone away.
Doesn't mean that Faith and Belief are not absoluitely necessary for salvation, does it?
Preach and believe whatever you wish, I will listen to the Author of Our Faith and the Source of Our Salvation...Jesus.
And the Church has understood this for almost 2,000 years.
Want to change the rules?
Well, you're right. Your position is one that is often stated. I'm not sure you can support your contention that it has been the prominent doctrine for 2,000 years but that's OK. Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that you took so much time considering my comments.
I only have one question: Do you think your argument becomes more persausive because you change your type to big, bold, colorful letters? I'm realy not trying to be snotty. Maybe it's just me, but I find all that bold text makes your message hard to read . . .
Ok, what do we know about the phrase "born again"
1. It is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:3
2. It is apparently the equivelent of being "born of water and spirit" John 3:5
The similarity of the phrasing in 3:3 and 3:5 indicates Jesus is explaining born again when he says "born of water and spirit" and then using almost identical wording after it.
3. It would be something known to Nicodemus. See 3:10 "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand this?"
What do we know about born of water and spirit.
1. The structure of the phrase in Greek indicates this is one birth of both water and spirit, not two separate births. If John wanted to describe two births he would have said "born of water and born of spirit." This is reinforced by Jesus substitution of "born of water and spirit" for "born again." If born of water = 1st birth, then only "born of spirit" would actually equate to "born again" but Jesus uses both.
2. Born of water is NEVER used in Greek to describe physical or natural birth.
What do we know about the phrase "born again" and how it was used at the time?
Alfred Edersheim in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah describes Jewish proselyte baptism which was called "born again" by Jewish Rabbi's.
Therefore, since it involves both water and spirit, since "born again" described a similar Jewish rite, since baptism is connected with receiving a new life in Romans 6 and since John was already baptizing in water for the forgiveness of sins it is reasonable to conclude that born again = baptism.
You still have the problem that born from water is NEVER used in Greek literature for childbirth AND the problem that the Greek language (it's kalled a kai construction) indicates born of water and spirit is ONE birth AND that "born again" or "born from above" was already an understood phrase of the time.
While the word anothen can be translated "again" or "from above" chosing one over the other does not preclude the new birth from being baptism. Whatever the new birth is, it will be both a second birth and a birth from above. In fact, I think this is another case where John uses both meanings as a kind of play on words. Another example of this would be katalambano in John 1:5 which can mean understand, receive or overcome. John means all three. The darkness did not understand, receive or overcome Jesus.
While your point about context is well taken. The fact that Jesus contrasts born of flesh with born of spirit does not mean that born of water is equal to born of flesh. It certainly does not exclude batpism. It just stresses the importance of being born of spirit which would equal the "born of water and spirit" He just described.
Edited for Clarification
And there shall be gnashing of teeth . . .
Let's forget about baptism and the water birth question for a minute. Everybody seems to agree there needs to be spiritual birth. How does that happen? What is Jesus telling Nicodemus he needs to do?
Are you sure that Born Again Christian isn't the trade name?
You accept Christ as your savior and follow His teachings. You pray to Him and ask for forgiveness to your sins. You put God before everything else and treat your fellow humans as you would want to be treated in all ways.
It's pretty simple. Anything more than than is generally related to human tradition and/or a corporate trademark.
Can you provide a scriptural reference in which Jesus instructs us to pray to him?
OK. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he needs to be born again/from above and that he needs to be born of water and spirit. Considering that proselyte baptism was called being born again/from above and considering that other texts link water baptism with the gift of the Spirit (e.g. Acts 2:38) and the new life (Romans 6:4) then Jesus is telling Nicodemus he needs to be baptized.
Remember also that Jesus Himself took a full dunk too from John the Baptist and the Spirit came down upon Him.
Edit: Interesting fact: All the miracles started happening after receiving the Holy Spirit.
So, that's it then? Take a dip and you're prayed up, packed up and ready to go to heaven?
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
Sorry, but it's not my argument that I put into bold colorful type, but the Words of Christ.
I color them to differentiate them from the words of anyone else.
So sue me.
Yeshua/Jesus is literally translated as the 'God of Salvation', or one of the identities of Yaweh/Adonai. Him is collective. Pray to God by invoking Jesus' name. Derrrr....
You must be one of those Christians who believe that in order to be a good believer, you have a more argumentative spirit.
OK, as far as it goes, but when is that event? I find it interesting that most people who would disqualify baptism as "the event" substitute another event (usually praying the sinners prayer). The justification for this is usually that baptism is a work and we are not saved by works.
Let's examine that reasoning for a moment.
What is a work? A work is something you do. Things that we do are expressed in active voice. Things that are done to us are expressed in passive voice.
Pray (the sinners prayer) is in active voice. It is something we do. Confess Jesus is in active voice. It is something we do. Be baptized is in passive voice. It is something done to is. By the definition of a work, the only one of those which is not a work is baptism. Physically we are not acting we do not baptize ourselves. Spiritually we are not acting, we do not save ourselves.
Baptism has been identified as work for two reasons.
1. It is something we can see. Since Aristotle divided the physical from the spiritual, those of us in Western culture have separated the physical world from the spiritual. Some of that is justified (see your explanation of Romans 7 above) BUT we go overboard. Some of us deny ourselves all physical pleasures (the aesthetics who are condemned in Scripture). Some of us deny any connection between our body and spirit. BUT, aren't we more suceptible to temptation when tired. In any event we seem biased against things we can see.
2. Baptism is practiced by the Catholic Church. If you study church history. In the NT Baptism is practiced by immerssion, on those who believe for the forgiveness of sins (See Acts 2:38 et.al.) After Augustine and the introduction of the idea that infants are born guilty of sin, the Church began to baptize infants instead of believers. For practical reasons sprinkling then supplanted immerssion. When the reformers came along they found a Church practicing baptism by sprinkling, on infants, but still for forgiveness of sins. Some of them realized the Church was wrong about the first two and assumed it was wrong about the third. They threw the bath water out with the baby (so to speak). Since the Catholic Church still practices baptism as a sacrament (a dispension of God's Grace) many Protestants rebel against the idea. While I don't agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine isn't it foolish for Protestants to not do something just because the Catholic Church does it?
To use an analogy, I've been saying our cake needs eggs. You've been saying it doesn't. Now you're saying "so a cake is nothing but eggs." Obviously, NO.
Baptism, whether it's Jewish proselyte, the baptism of John or Christian baptism was ALWAYS associated with, and presumed Repentance and Faith.
how long has she been a born again Christian? Often times young Christians relate their experience and church temperature as the only one and expect you to behave like them...What I have seen is the older Christians understand the differences in others' personality and church activity so they don't expect everybody to be a clone...
This post, I think, gets the discussion back on track to the original question. My take on the original post was, to paraphrase, 'If I have been baptized, and I am a believer, why do I need to be born again?'
My take (RCC, BTW) is that you don't. But I have heard firsthand accounts of believers who change denominations and are required to be 're-baptized.' I think that is ludicrous and unscriptural, nevertheless, it occurs.
I suppose that if the clear and concise 'Repent and be baptized' requirement announced by St. Peter in the First Sermon in the Christian Church doesn't fully persuade you that Repentance and Baptism are the necessary answers to the Eternal Question, 'Men and brethren, what shall I do?', then you are well on your way to creating another faith system or religion that has little to do with Historical Christianity.
and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:36-38
See, here is water.
What doth hinder you to be baptized?
Pride? Hardness of heart? Hydrophobia?
Jesus submitted to Baptism, His Apostles submitted to Baptism, every new convert we read of in the New Testament following Pentecost submitted to Baptism....
...and yet you think otherwise, that it is 'unnecessary' or 'merely symbolic'?
Changing or "upgrading" your faith for a guy/girl is IMHO a decision that is foolishly made.
If YOU feel the need to take this step, take it. Doing it for a woman will not make your decision a fulfilling one.
When I read that I was thinking 'rabies?'. LOL!
You are correct that baptize means to immerse and by itself does not necessarily require water. However it does imply water. To say that simply because the modifier “in Christ” is added on that the Paul is not talking about water baptism is spurious.
As you said, the word baptizo was used of dunking, dyeing etc. It was used in a military sense to indicate a ship that was sunk. Now, if I say, “the USS Arizona was sunk in battle”, do you automatically assume that I’m just saying that it was deeply involved in a battle. No you assume that it was sunk in water during a battle. In the same way, the natural reading of Romans 6 is that when we are physically baptized in water, we are also spiritually united with/immersed in Christ.
Also, it is interesting that your interpretation was completely missed by the Early Church. The practice of the earliest Christians was uniformly baptism in water by immersion. Here are some quotes from 2nd century and early 3rd century sources regarding baptism.
While none of the above are Scripture, they are pretty clear evidence about how people who spoke the language and lived in the days just after the apostles understood the New Testament's teaching on baptism.
I’ll agree that belief precedes baptism, in fact I said that very thing in my last post. If you are baptized and don’t believe you are just a wet unbeliever. However, that does not mean baptism is not the time of the new birth and that baptism is not what's being talked about in John 3.
In fact, concerning the meaning of "born again/from above" in John 3,
So considering that the natural reading of baptism/dunking would imply water, considering that the early church practiced water baptism and believed it was necessary for forgiveness of sins and salvation, considering that the book of Acts has numerous examples of individuals undergoing water baptism; it is reasonable to conclude that Romans 6 is about water baptism and that in the John 3 passage "born again/from above" and "born of water and Spirit" refer to baptism.
You asked, "why else would you be seeking water baptism unless the change had already occurred?" Well for one possibility (and I believe the correct one) because you desire for the change to occur.
As for the Ethiopian eunuch considering that he had likely been prohibited from undergoing proselyte baptism since eunuchs were forbidden in the temple, his past experience probably has more to do with why he asks "what keeps me from being baptized?" Notice he does NOT say, since I'm saved let's get baptized.
Edited to fix quotation
Unfortunately, many "Born Again"/Evangelical Christians don't consider others "born again" unless they believe in Jesus according to their definition of Him. You must also interpret the Bible as they do, otherwise you are in error and cannot be truly "born again".
You may think you are, but you are just fooling yourself and don't really understand. You then become an object of their pity, and they see it as their mission to point out to you the error of your ways.
Not to but through.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Didn't that phraseology go out in the 80s? Born again? People get too hung up on words and fail to see what really counts.
1. Do you know you are a sinner?
2. Do you know that Jesus died on Calvary to pay for your sins?
3. Do you realize that without accepting him and his act of sacrificial love for you through repenting of your sins that you cannot enter heaven?
4. Do you realize that you must be sorry for your sin and believe in him -- not just "believe".
I believe there's a God but that idea alone isn't going to pave my way to heaven.
The key is not phraseology but action. You must repent of your sin. Realization is key. Otherwise, you just got on your knees and said a few meaningless words.
No, just someone who is pretty sure Jesus said to worship the father . . .
I have a question about this. Maybe somebody can shed some light for me. There are two scriptures that I know of that suggest that Jesus died for the sins of the Jews:
1.) Gal 4:4-5
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
2.) Heb 9:15
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Also, Jesus has been called the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. I think most people will agree that this is a comparison to a sacrificial lamb. Normally, under the law, sacrifices were offered for sins already committed. I'm not aware of there being an example in the Law in which a sacrifice was offered for sins that WOULD be committed.
So what's the deal with this? The scriptures say Jesus died for those under the Law/under the first testament, yet people say he died for OUR sins. What gives?
Typically, analogies are used to make things EASIER to understand. I suppose it doesn't have to be that way, though . . .
Yeah, I think I said something about repentence. We agree on that point. So if a person is repentant and ready to change their ways — straighten up and fly right, as it were — what does the dunking do, exactly?
Baptism is an outward picture of what has already taken place in your heart. The water doesn't save you. It's an outward expression of obedience, Christ was baptized in obedience to the Father, and we are likewise. It shows the world that we are his followers. Water does not save you.
Jesus saves, plus nothing, minus nothing. Anything else you add to that puts you in control of your own salvation. We can do nothing to save ourselves. The shed blood of Christ paid the price for sin.
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
Does that put you in the "baptism is a sign" camp? If so, would you go so far as to say that undergoing a physical/natural dunking/immersion/sprinkling is not necessary if your repentence is real? Or do you think that the physical act IS necessary as proof of your obedience?
Would actual obedience (i.e. following Christ's commandments, loving your neighbor, etc.) be proof of your obedience as well? Would truly living a Christian life show the world that we are his follower? Or is all of that for naught if we don't get dunked?
Trusting in religion PLUS "Jesus" is not saving faith.
Doesn't matter what religion (with its requisite acts) it is.
Water baptism plus Jesus = no salvation.
Keeping ten commandments plus Jesus = no salvation
Sacraments plus Jesus = Jesus
Anything YOU DO plus Jesus = no salvation.
Salvation is IN CHRIST AND IN HIM ALONE.
If a person TRULY trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as their saviour.....THAT is Biblical salvation.
Salvation is a GIFT and gifts CANNOT be earned.
Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Tit 3:5 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;
God has made it SO SIMPLE,
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Regarding BORN AGAIN:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 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: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Everyone has a physical birth.
Those who repent of their sins and trust the FINISHED WORK of the Lord Jesus Christ are born again - they are born of the Spirit.
Note the religious deceivers - they will point you AWAY from Jesus and AWAY from His cross. They point to their religious dogma instead.
No new birth there.
Jesus did ALL the work. Jesus paid ALL the price. Jesus offers the GIFT of everlasting life to sinners.
You cannot earn a gift!
Just re-posting as a remindsr of the question that was ASKED.
These religion threads go to hell faster than airsoft ones.
Oh the irony....
Yeah, some of this has drifted. But, since the question was about what it means to be "born again" and some of us (at least I do) believe that born again = be baptized, the thread hasn't wandered that far.
Edited to fix quote