Are all born again Christians saved?

[BobRyan]

This may sound like a stupid question. I apologize if it comes off as stupid I'm 100% sincere. But are all born again Christians saved?

They are if they are still born-again. If they have lost their salvation "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4... then they would no longer be saved.

"4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Gal 5:4 - NASB

Rom 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[aiki]

Ok, but first you have faith then you get baptized. You won't get baptized if you don't have faith. So faith and baptism goes together if you hold to the doctrine of believers baptism. If a person gets baptized not being a believer there won't be any new birth.

From my own view rebirth happens when coming to faith, when the Holy Spirit enters the heart.

I'm not sure what I believe about infant baptism.

Why is there no instance in the New Testament of infant baptism? Why is such a thing not taught by the apostles, either? It seems very evident to me that baptism is "an outward sign of an inward change." That inward change is contingent upon a knowledge of the truths of the Gospel and a conscious trusting in them; it is not derived from the act of baptism itself. Consider that Paul did not appear to think baptism was a necessary part of the Gospel:

1 Corinthians 1:17
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It's worth noting that Paul indicates here that his not baptizing folk was a consequence of obeying the Christ-ordained purpose for which he had been sent as an apostle. Paul seems to be implying in this that his separation of the Gospel from baptism originated with Christ himself.

In any case, being born again is a spiritual event made possible by the indwelling of God's Spirit within a person (John 3:6; Romans 8:10-11; Titus 3:5) who believes the Gospel and by faith receives Christ as Saviour and Lord (John 1:12; Colossians 2:6). Baptism is not integral to these things. So it is we read in Acts of those who were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they had been born again by the Spirit, but had not been baptized:

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

In light of these things, it seems evident to me that baptism is not salvific - for an infant or adult - and so fails to serve the purpose for which infant baptism is intended.

 

[zoidar]

Lutherans refer to "Word and Sacrament" as one thing; because the preaching of the word (the proclamation of the Gospel) and the Sacraments (Baptism, the Eucharist, and Absolution) aren't "different" things, they are all Word, that is, where the proclamation of the Gospel is the preached Word the Sacraments are "visible Word". Looking back to Ephesians 5:26 Paul connects water and word together in a single washing, and so we say that Baptism is Baptism (and not mere water) because it is water connected to God's Word. Mere water can do nothing, only God's Word can do something because God's word is living and active, doing what God sends it forth to accomplish (Hebrews 4:12, Isaiah 55:11).

We baptize infants with the knowledge that repentance shall come with time, as the child is reared up with faith.

We baptize adults who are penitent, for having had much of their lives already lived outside of the faith we are calling them to repentance, faith, and baptism.

Nothing is different except the order. For St. Peter says, "Repent and be baptized all of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) and the Lord in the longer ending of Mark's Gospel says, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16). We don't separate repentance and belief from Baptism, but comprehend them in and with Baptism.

The order isn't what matters, it's the gracious activity of God through Word and Sacrament that matters.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for taking time to explain Lutherans view on baptism. I must say it's an interesting view.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why is there no instance in the New Testament of infant baptism? Why is such a thing not taught by the apostles, either?

The New Testament mentions the baptism of entire households.

Further, should we expect Scripture to spell out in detail the age of every person who is baptized, for example Scripture does not specifically mention the baptism of the elderly, or the middle-aged, or of teenagers.

If Baptism is everything Scripture says it is, then there should be a pretty good reason why we would refuse to baptize our children. And if the only reason people can come up with is that children are unable to fully understand the significance of it, then I would also recommend not preaching the Gospel to your children either, seeing as they cannot understand the significance of it.

But if you preach the Gospel to your children, if you tell even your infant about the love of Jesus, then it is hypocritical to claim that we cannot baptize our children. Either children are included in the Household of faith, or they aren't. One doesn't get to be two-faced about this, it's one or the other.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[aiki]

The New Testament mentions the baptism of entire households.

Did this include infants? Scripture doesn't say. As I pointed out, however, along with a complete absence of any recorded instance of a baptized infant (though there are plenty of such instances recorded of adults), there is no explicit teaching concerning baptizing infants who are so young that they cannot comprehend the significance of baptism. Every time I see baptism mentioned in the New Testament, it is in connection to those who can comprehend what baptism signifies.

If Baptism is everything Scripture says it is, then there should be a pretty good reason why we would refuse to baptize our children. And if the only reason people can come up with is that children are unable to fully understand the significance of it, then I would also recommend not preaching the Gospel to your children either, seeing as they cannot understand the significance of it.

I agree. There is no point in sharing the Gospel with one who is unable to comprehend it. But, when a child is able to understand what it means to be saved and why it is necessary to be saved, then, by all means, share with them the Good News of salvation.

But if you preach the Gospel to your children, if you tell even your infant about the love of Jesus, then it is hypocritical to claim that we cannot baptize our children.

I have never shared the Gospel with an infant, nor do I know of anyone who has. What would be the point?

Either children are included in the Household of faith, or they aren't. One doesn't get to be two-faced about this, it's one or the other.

Two-faced? Coming on a bit strong, there, V.C.

Those children who comprehend the Gospel and respond positively to it (ie. repent, trust in Christ as their Saviour) are of the "household of faith." All other children who have reached an age of accountability and possess an intellect sufficient to understand the Gospel but who have not received Christ stand outside that household. I don't see that Scripture gives us any reason to think otherwise.

 

[zoidar]

One problem I see with believers baptism and that is when a young child, maybe a 5 year old wants to get baptized, but is refused by the parents because she is to young to understand the gospel. Are we to decide who can and can't understand the gospel?

To rely on that children are allready saved is taking that teaching too far. Our goal must be to preach the gospel and baptize those who want to follow Jesus no matter how old.

I would hate to see a child pass away without being baptized. And if it is because of a refusal of the baptismal right by the parents then it's even worse.

 

[Geralt]

all christians are 'born again'- Jn3:7, or 'born from above' or 'born of the spirit', or in theological terms 'regeneration'.

it is the first evidence of God's applied salvation to his elect.

This may sound like a stupid question. I apologize if it comes off as stupid I'm 100% sincere. But are all born again Christians saved? There are many varying opinions on google so I was searching for the correct interpretation.

 

[Tangible]

The only "one" who needs to know is God. I think He's capable of having that knowledge, don't you? But hey, thanks for the condescension and insult.

Apologies if I misunderstood your previous post.

 

[HypnoToad]

Apologies if I misunderstood your previous post.

no worries

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did this include infants?

Based on what we know about ancient households there's no reason to think it didn't.

Scripture doesn't say.

Scripture doesn't explicitly mention the ages of everyone, or really even anyone, when it speaks of entire households being baptized.

As I pointed out, however, along with a complete absence of any recorded instance of a baptized infant (though there are plenty of such instances recorded of adults),

Is there any recorded instance of a baptized elderly person? Are we allowed to baptize the elderly?

there is no explicit teaching concerning baptizing infants who are so young that they cannot comprehend the significance of baptism.

There is no explicit teaching concerning the baptizing of adolescents, teenagers, or the elderly; nor any mention of the baptism of people with blonde hair, or the baptism of sick people, or the baptism of any number of arbitrary class of people we happen to fathom.

Your assertion that someone must be able to comprehend the significance of baptism is unbiblical. And by your reasoning then my own baptism, though I was 17 years old when I was baptized, isn't valid since at the time I did not comprehend the significance of it.

Since when is God's power and grace dependent upon the ability of sinful mortals?

Every time I see baptism mentioned in the New Testament, it is in connection to those who can comprehend what baptism signifies.

And very few specific individuals are named as having received it, and yet we know that more than just those mentioned did receive it; and we know that entire households received it as well.

I agree. There is no point in sharing the Gospel with one who is unable to comprehend it. But, when a child is able to understand what it means to be saved and why it is necessary to be saved, then, by all means, share with them the Good News of salvation.

Fortunately the rest of the Church does not agree with you, and believes in sharing the love of Jesus Christ with their children, and does not revoke the command of Christ, "Do not prohibit these little ones from drawing unto Me."

I have never shared the Gospel with an infant, nor do I know of anyone who has. What would be the point?

My mother sang to me when I was a child. And I thank the God of Heaven that I had a mother and a father who from even the time I was in the womb I heard about the love and goodness of Jesus Christ. What I could not comprehend with the intellect, I had in faith--faith in the Son of God given to me not by my own power of mind, but by the kindness of God working by the Word.

Two-faced? Coming on a bit strong, there, V.C.

It is sometimes necessary to use strong language.

Those children who comprehend the Gospel and respond positively to it (ie. repent, trust in Christ as their Saviour) are of the "household of faith." All other children who have reached an age of accountability and possess an intellect sufficient to understand the Gospel but who have not received Christ stand outside that household. I don't see that Scripture gives us any reason to think otherwise.

I don't recall where in Scripture it says that we are saved by our ability to comprehend theology, or to be able to pass a theological test, or by thinking the right things. In fact, I recall Scripture saying the opposite, that it is by grace that we are saved, through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of our own efforts, so that no one may boast.

There is no such thing as an "age of accountability", there's no magical age at which point a person suddenly is capable of fully understanding and fathom the immense depths of the mysteries of God's grace found in Christ Jesus. The greatest theologians and doctors of the Church spend a life time in that, and even they still remain fallible, mortal, sinners who can only hope in nothing but the kindness of God, trusting in the Christ who was crucified, buried, dead, and rose from the dead.

I don't believe salvation is about passing a theological exam. I believe salvation is what God has done for us in Jesus Christ out of the infinite and overabundant riches of His kindness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

This may sound like a stupid question. I apologize if it comes off as stupid I'm 100% sincere. But are all born again Christians saved? There are many varying opinions on google so I was searching for the correct interpretation.

"Born again" has become a Christian buzz word and just because someone identifies as born again doesn't always mean the same thing. Biblically speaking it means to be born of the spirit (see John 3) and if one is authentically born of the spirit then then they can also be considered among the saved.

 

[dms1972]

One problem I see with believers baptism and that is when a young child, maybe a 5 year old wants to get baptized, but is refused by the parents because she is to young to understand the gospel. Are we to decide who can and can't understand the gospel?

To rely on that children are allready saved is taking that teaching too far. Our goal must be to preach the gospel and baptize those who want to follow Jesus no matter how old.

I would hate to see a child pass away without being baptized. And if it is because of a refusal of the baptismal right by the parents then it's even worse.

Depends on why the child wants to be baptised.

 

[aiki]

Based on what we know about ancient households there's no reason to think it didn't.

Except that there's no record of one in the New Testament, nor any teaching on the subject of infant baptism.

Is there any recorded instance of a baptized elderly person? Are we allowed to baptize the elderly?

Am I arguing against baptizing an elderly person? No.

Scripture doesn't explicitly mention the ages of everyone, or really even anyone, when it speaks of entire households being baptized.

Arguing that infant baptism occurred in the New Testament Church because of the absence of specific ages given for anyone who was baptized is essentially to try to make a positive case for something on the basis of an absence of evidence for it. You wouldn't succeed with this line of reasoning in a court of law and it doesn't work here, either. We have sufficient details in the New Testament concerning those who are specifically mentioned as being baptized to reasonably conclude that they were all of sufficient age to be able to fully comprehend the Gospel and the significance of baptism. Those John baptized, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, the "men and women" (not infants) of Acts 8:12, Paul, Lydia, Crispus - these were all clearly adults.

There is no explicit teaching concerning the baptizing of adolescents, teenagers, or the elderly; nor any mention of the baptism of people with blonde hair, or the baptism of sick people, or the baptism of any number of arbitrary class of people we happen to fathom.

But I'm not arguing against the baptism of any of these sorts of people, only against the baptism of infants, who are utterly incapable of understanding the Gospel or the purpose and meaning of baptism. I suppose, though, by extension, I would be arguing against the baptism of anyone who could not, due to illness, mental deficiency, or brain injury, comprehend the Gospel and the significance of baptism. Having blonde hair, or being adolescent, or elderly, though, does not, as it does in the case of an infant, necessarily indicate an inability to comprehend the Gospel and baptism. An infant by virtue of being an infant is completely incapable of understanding either thing, unlike the blonde or elderly person who aren't unable to understand the Gospel and the purpose and meaning of baptism merely because they are blonde or elderly.

Your assertion that someone must be able to comprehend the significance of baptism is unbiblical. And by your reasoning then my own baptism, though I was 17 years old when I was baptized, isn't valid since at the time I did not comprehend the significance of it.

Well, I disagree. I think it is very evident in Scripture that baptism is the consequence of a process involving knowledge, persuasion, belief and trust. Divorce baptism from these things and it becomes meaningless.

Why you would engage in a religious ritual you did not understand - especially when you were at an age where you could have understood it - is a mystery to me. What I think of your doing so I have already made clear, I believe, in my comments above.

Since when is God's power and grace dependent upon the ability of sinful mortals?

I don't know. Since when?

And very few specific individuals are named as having received it, and yet we know that more than just those mentioned did receive it; and we know that entire households received it as well.

Well, we have many baptized adults specifically mentioned (see above), but not a single infant. This is a fact of Scripture. Against this, your speculations stand very weakly.

Fortunately the rest of the Church does not agree with you, and believes in sharing the love of Jesus Christ with their children, and does not revoke the command of Christ, "Do not prohibit these little ones from drawing unto Me."

??? Let me quote myself here:

"But, when a child is able to understand what it means to be saved and why it is necessary to be saved, then, by all means, share with them the Good News of salvation."

My mother sang to me when I was a child. And I thank the God of Heaven that I had a mother and a father who from even the time I was in the womb I heard about the love and goodness of Jesus Christ. What I could not comprehend with the intellect, I had in faith--faith in the Son of God given to me not by my own power of mind, but by the kindness of God working by the Word.

You can't have faith that exists entirely independently of intellect. Paul makes this point:

2 Timothy 1:12
12 ...for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

I don't recall where in Scripture it says that we are saved by our ability to comprehend theology, or to be able to pass a theological test, or by thinking the right things. In fact, I recall Scripture saying the opposite, that it is by grace that we are saved, through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of our own efforts, so that no one may boast.

Romans 10:9-11
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.
10 For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture says, Whoever believes on him shall not be ashamed.

Acts 4:12
12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Romans 10:14
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?...

Galatians 1:8
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

There is no such thing as an "age of accountability", there's no magical age at which point a person suddenly is capable of fully understanding and fathom the immense depths of the mysteries of God's grace found in Christ Jesus.

I never said there was a "magical age" of understanding. Children will come to the point of being able to understand the Gospel variously.

I've also never suggested that what is required for salvation is an understanding that "fathoms the immense depths of the mysteries of God's grace, etc." That's your Strawman version of my comments.

I don't believe salvation is about passing a theological exam. I believe salvation is what God has done for us in Jesus Christ out of the infinite and overabundant riches of His kindness.

Theological exam? No. A knowledge of the truth? Yes.

 

[Oldmantook]

Not a stupid question at all. It seems many here are fuzzy about the answer.

The analogy of being born again was used by the Lord so that we could understand the concept of salvation simply by comparing it to something we are all familiar with. And yet there are some who still seem to want to make it more difficult to understand than it was meant to be.

The physical process goes like this:
Our life was generated in secret by a specific act of our earthly father. We played no part in it. Indeed there was no "we" until our father acted.
In due time we came forth through the medium of water as a new born babe for the world to see and started our mortal and temporary life in the Kingdom of this world. We grew by taking in the air and the food of this world.

The spiritual process goes like this:
Our life was generated in secret by a specific act of our Heavenly Father. We played no part in it. Indeed there was no "we" until our Father acted.
In due time we came forth through the medium of the Spirit of God as a new creation for the world to see and started what is for us an "eternal life" in the Kingdom of God. We grow by taking in the Spirit and the food He feeds us.

Where as we were nurtured in the natural in water until our time to be born came due in the natural - we were nurtured in the work of the Holy Spirit until our time to be born again came due in the spiritual.

For some - the time of nurturing in the Spirit seems to be short with hardly any struggle at all. For some, like Paul and like myself, there is a longer period where we "kick against the goads".

Where as our physical birth began by taking in air - our spiritual birth began by taking in the Word of God as administered by the same Spirit who had quickened us.

We were born again by the living and abiding Word of God and we are nurtured and grow in the same way. We could not have entered eternal life in the Kingdom of God except by the ministry of the Spirit of God using the Word of God.

Any way - there's a lot of rambling there I suppose. But it really isn't spiritual rocket science. It's quite simple. Think of the natural and carry it over to the spiritual.

By the way - being "born again" is not the same as being "regenerated" any more than being born in the natural was the same as our original "generation". That was a new creation in the womb waiting for the time he or she was to be born.

We do not become a new creation through anything we do. Rather we are saved by grace by a sovereign act of our Heavenly Father.

Sorry to take so long on what should be a rather simple subject.

But it seems that many here want us to see our life as a saved person in the Kingdom ending an beginning and ending and beginning now and then throughout our years depending on how successful we are in refraining from sin and doing good works at the time.

Which of course is ridiculous and, may I say, completely ignorant of the most basic concepts the Lord meant us to easily understand.

"Refraining from sin" refers to being obedient as a believer. If a believer chooses to instead indulge in the flesh and not refrain from sin. is he/she still saved according to Heb 5:9?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Theological exam? No. A knowledge of the truth? Yes.

And the difference is what, exactly?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Serving Zion]

"Refraining from sin" refers to being obedient as a believer.

That definition does describe part of what it means to refrain from sin, but there is also another aspect of sin that might not be deliberate disobedience - rather, it is the fruits of the flesh manifesting as pride, envy, wrath etc that does not accurately convey the image of God (1 John 3:6, Ephesians 2:3) - qualities that are not manifested by someone who is living according to the spirit, that is love (Galatians 5:16, Romans 13:10).

If a believer chooses to instead indulge in the flesh and not refrain from sin. is he/she still saved according to Heb 5:9?

An investigation into the reason would produce the underlying motive, that might essentially be a self-centredness instead of love (that means they are carnal and not spiritual - they need to be born again, 1 John 4:7-8), or it might be that they are captives of fear (Proverbs 29:25, Matthew 10:28, James 4:4) - that although having been born again, their faith is a work in progress seeing as they have not yet (Romans 12:2, Romans 8:29) been made perfect in love (1 John 4:18).

 

[Oldmantook]

That definition does describe part of what it means to refrain from sin, but there is also another aspect of sin that might not be deliberate disobedience - rather, it is the fruits of the flesh manifesting as pride, envy, wrath etc that does not accurately convey the image of God (1 John 3:6, Ephesians 2:3) - qualities that are not manifested by someone who is living according to the spirit, that is love (Galatians 5:16, Romans 13:10).

An investigation into the reason would produce the underlying motive, that might essentially be a self-centredness instead of love (that means they are carnal and not spiritual - they need to be born again, 1 John 4:7-8), or it might be that they are captives of fear (Proverbs 29:25, Matthew 10:28, James 4:4) - that although having been born again, their faith is a work in progress seeing as they have not yet (Romans 12:2, Romans 8:29) been made perfect in love (1 John 4:18).

It is irrelevant as to what the underlying motive is as the result is still the same. Believers who practice sin by sowing to the flesh instead of living according to the Spirit,reap spiritual death.
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. Rom 8:13

 

[Serving Zion]

It is irrelevant as to what the underlying motive is as the result is still the same. Believers who practice sin by sowing to the flesh instead of living according to the Spirit,reap spiritual death.
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. Rom 8:13

It is right to say those words, but there needs to be a clear distinction attached between one who does deeds of the flesh compared to one who actively sows into the flesh. So because I recognise that there is precision in your words, to this effect, I say this only for the record and for the benefit of onlookers who might be increasing by observation.

I offer to clarify that one doesn't necessarily perish for having done deeds according to the flesh instead of the spirit, if it is a result of a moment of weakness (eg: 1 John 5:17, 2 Peter 3:9). Also, one might consider Proverbs 24:16 and 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 to suggest that in The Day of Judgement, the worthlessness is purged but whatever is worthwhile remains.

In this way, it is the process of Malachi 3:2-4 and Isaiah 6:13, that is that through enduring His baptism (Matthew 3:11-12, Matthew 10:22,24, Romans 5:3-5), we are being transformed by the renewing of the mind. It takes time to be transformed - to come out of the world.

So, it is just to make this clear, that the defining factor between those who come through the fire and those who perish, is not whether they do works of the flesh, but whether they are sowing into it.

 

[Oldmantook]

It is right to say those words, but there needs to be a clear distinction attached between one who does deeds of the flesh compared to one who actively sows into the flesh. So because I recognise that there is precision in your words, to this effect, I say this only for the record and for the benefit of onlookers who might be increasing by observation.

I offer to clarify that one doesn't necessarily perish for having done deeds according to the flesh instead of the spirit, if it is a result of a moment of weakness (eg: 1 John 5:17, 2 Peter 3:9). Also, one might consider Proverbs 24:16 and 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 to suggest that in The Day of Judgement, the worthlessness is purged but whatever is worthwhile remains.

In this way, it is the process of Malachi 3:2-4 and Isaiah 6:13, that is that through enduring His baptism (Matthew 3:11-12, Matthew 10:22,24, Romans 5:3-5), we are being transformed by the renewing of the mind. It takes time to be transformed - to come out of the world.

So, it is just to make this clear, that the defining factor between those who come through the fire and those who perish, is not whether they do works of the flesh, but whether they are sowing into it.

If I understand you correctly, the operative word is "sowing" as in the practice of sin to which I agree. 1 John 1 states that we all sin, as no one is without sin. IF we WALK IN THE LIGHT, then Jesus' blood cleanses us from occasional sin upon repentance (v.7). The condition as indicted by the word "if" is walking in the light. This is contrasted with walking in darkness where the practice of sin evidences that a believer has not genuinely repented as the sin is habitual. Instead of living according to the Spirit and persevering, the believer has instead chosen to live according to the flesh - the result of which is spiritual death according to Rom 8:13. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[The Times]

This may sound like a stupid question. I apologize if it comes off as stupid I'm 100% sincere. But are all born again Christians saved? There are many varying opinions on google so I was searching for the correct interpretation.

Being born again......hmmmmm.....what is it? and how it works?

Being born again is not about Jesus, for it is solely about you the believer in Christ, who was already called to faith, meaning you believe wholeheartedly in Christ's Life, crucifixion and resurrection.

Being born again, as Jesus had alluded to, is elaborated by Apostle Paul in his letters and it is the infinite verb of putting off your old man and putting on the new man. The act of mortifying the old man, is an infinite verb in continuous action, that is continually being applied. So that being born again is a life long process, until a witness in their struggle against sin (body of sin), have resisted to the point of shedding their blood, meaning to overcome sin onto death, whilst keeping the faith. (Hebrews 12:4)

So every believer called to Christ is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, over their life time and it is the marrying of the two wills, as two willing partners in union, so that the rehabilitation process can continue to take effect. That is why Jesus said, continue to stay in, as I am in you and you in me. This two party spiritual union, is based on loyalty and obedience to Christ.

12Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

This is what Jesus meant to follow him, in his footsteps, by carrying your own crosses onto your own Calvary.

There are obligatory life long conditions of being born again and so it is highly suggestive, that so long we have not yet finished our race of faith (2 Timothy 4:6-8), we are under obligation to keep the faith and stay the narrow path in Christ, whilst we agree as a willing party to mortify the deeds of the flesh, the Old Man (Romans 6:6-13).

Apostle Paul says, those who are governed by the mind of flesh are hostile to God and will not conform to his ways and Laws. So a born again is a process that gradually and throughout a lifetime is transforming those willing parties called to Christ, to be gradually transformed over a life time, to a mind governed by the Spirit. So no one has actually arrived to being a full born again, for this will be only realised after biological death, when the righteous Judge will give us our Crown of Life, on resurrection day.

In this regard we have not arrived at being born again, but are on a path, a trajectory, to that ultimate sinless state, because being born again is when Christ appears to us, by then we would have been transformed in that sinless state/nature and to see him as he is in his glorified form (1 John 3:2), because we too would have taken that resurrection form after biological death, on the day of judgment (Hebrews 9:28).

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; (Process of putting off over a life time) fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

9Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Colossians 3:5, 9-10)

So, that no one can boast to claim that they have already arrived at their new birth, as being born again, but are merely travellers in this temporal lifetime, aspiring to reach their destinies and to be reunited with Christ after they biologically die. The Crown of Life is the realisation of the new birth, the born again and we only receive our Crown of Life, our inheritance, only after we as Testators biologically die (Hebrews 9:15-17)