What does it mean to be "born again"?

[Armour of God]

Being born of water does not birth the 'new' person who sees and enters the kingdom of heaven. Being born of the Spirit does. But it is necessary to be born of water, too. At the time Jesus is saying this people are being baptized in water for repentance in preparation for baptism in the Spirit.

Even today repentance almost always precedes the new birth by the Spirit. 'Natural man first, spiritual man second' is a principle seen all through the Bible. As necessary as repentance is, repentance births a natural man who cannot see and enter into the kingdom of heaven. You must also be born of the Spirit through faith in God's forgiveness through Jesus. Lawful repentance isn't enough. You must have faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sin to see and enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 20:21
21I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Welcome to the forum
And thanks for sharing your opinion.
God bless

 

[Armour of God]

It's my understanding that Jesus’s phrase “born again” in John 3 refers to the new supernatural life God gives the soul — a life that does not come from human birth (“born of flesh”) but from the Spirit (“born of Spirit”). In the dialogue, Jesus contrasts what human nature can generate with what only God can generate. Flesh produces merely natural life; Spirit produces divine life.

When Jesus speaks of “water and Spirit,” He is describing the two inseparable aspects of this rebirth:

• “Water” corresponds to the purification and renunciation of the old life — the cleansing that prepares the soul for God.
• “Spirit” is the infusion of divine life that enables the soul to live in a new way, with capacities it did not possess before.

John 3 also explains how one knows this rebirth has occurred: not by feelings, but by the effects Jesus describes — the ability to perceive (“see”) and enter the kingdom of God, a new interior orientation toward truth, and a life shaped by the Spirit rather than the flesh. Rebirth gives the soul the capacity to recognize and respond to the movements of the Spirit. As Jesus teaches with the image of the wind, the Spirit comes freely and cannot be controlled, but His presence is known by His effects; and only the soul that is alert, like a sailor who unfurls the sails at the right moment, can follow His call. This is why Nicodemus cannot understand rebirth (“How can these things be?”): without faith in the Incarnate Word, he cannot perceive the Spirit’s action, just as Jesus says that one must first believe in the Son to recognize the Spirit’s voice. The Spirit’s work is known by its fruits, and the reborn soul knows the voice of the Spirit of whom it was born.

The chapter’s later focus on baptism (“Jesus and His disciples went into the Judean countryside, and He baptized”) shows the sacramental context in which this rebirth is ordinarily given. Baptism is the visible, ecclesial means by which the purification (“water”) and vivification (“Spirit”) Jesus describes are conferred. But the essence of being “born again” is the interior reality itself — the soul’s rebirth through God, the creation of a new life that flesh cannot produce.

Welcome to the forum
And thanks for sharing your opinion
God bless

 

[Moonwood]

Well done.
Most logical and Scriptural explanation of that passage in this entire thread. (Including my own)
Well done.

Peace and the Holy Spirit be with you.

 

[Hillsage]

It's my understanding that Jesus’s phrase “born again” in John 3 refers to the new supernatural life God gives the soul — a life that does not come from human birth (“born of flesh”) but from the Spirit (“born of Spirit”). In the dialogue, Jesus contrasts what human nature can generate with what only God can generate. Flesh produces merely natural life; Spirit produces divine life.

When Jesus speaks of “water and Spirit,” He is describing the two inseparable aspects of this rebirth:

• “Water” corresponds to the purification and renunciation of the old life — the cleansing that prepares the soul for God.
• “Spirit” is the infusion of divine life that enables the soul to live in a new way, with capacities it did not possess before.

I have liked everything you have written, but your first post threw me a curve. Correct me if I'm just reading this incorrectly. You say "Jesus’s phrase “born again” in John 3 refers to the new supernatural life God gives the soul." And then at the end you say; — the soul’s rebirth through God, the creation of a new life that flesh cannot produce.

Are you saying it is just the 'soul' that is born again? I believe it is the 'born again' spirit which affects the soul's decision making process for how one is going to subsequently 'walk' in their fleshly body. I think that if you're led of the 'born again spirit' you will walk in righteousness. But if you walk according to the sin natured flesh, you will quench the born again spirit's cry and you will walk in unrighteousness.

 

[Moonwood]

I have liked everything you have written, but your first post threw me a curve. Correct me if I'm just reading this incorrectly. You say "Jesus’s phrase “born again” in John 3 refers to the new supernatural life God gives the soul." And then at the end you say; — the soul’s rebirth through God, the creation of a new life that flesh cannot produce.

Are you saying it is just the 'soul' that is born again? I believe it is the 'born again' spirit which affects the soul's decision making process for how one is going to subsequently 'walk' in their fleshly body. I think that if you're led of the 'born again spirit' you will walk in righteousness. But if you walk according to the sin natured flesh, you will quench the born again spirit's cry and you will walk in unrighteousness.

I wasn’t saying only the soul is born again. In John 3 the “soul” means the whole interior person. John doesn’t divide the human person into “spirit vs. soul” the way Paul sometimes does. Jesus’s contrast is between natural life (“flesh”) and supernatural life (“Spirit”). You can see this clearly in Johannine anthropology.

“Born again” means receiving the new divine life God gives — the life that transforms the whole interior person and enables one to perceive and respond to the Spirit. My phrase “the soul’s rebirth” was describing that interior supernatural life, not isolating one part of the person. This is the same contrast Jesus makes between flesh and Spirit: what comes from human generation and what comes from God.

 

[Lambano]

So I take it to mean the water from above (from when God separated the waters from above from the waters below). The water that if you drink you will never thirst. The water of the Word.

Keep going....

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

John never uses “water” as a metonym for repentance.

What you mean is John doesn't specifically call out that he's doing that.

In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently refers to cleansing or life, not to moral reform or law‑keeping.

Yes, water = cleansing. Repentance via John's baptism cleanses the outer man, not the inner man. That's why it's not good enough by itself to see and enter into the kingdom of God. That's the exact message that is relevant to Nicodemus and the Jews at this time, for John's ministry of baptism for repentance in preparation for Jesus' baptism by the Spirit is occurring at this time.

John 1:33
33...the one who sent me to baptize with water (for repentance) told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

The understanding I am sharing here is entirely in line with that theme. Besides, Paul tells us quite specifically what it means to be born by/according to the flesh. It's entirely in line with the theme of 'repentance to God and the law and faith in Jesus' in John's letter.

And in John 3, Jesus does not say “born of water is repentance” — He pairs “water and Spirit” together as the single reality of supernatural rebirth.

I agree that water and Spirit are being paired together as a single reality of rebirth by the Spirit in salvation, just not the way you say they are.

Acts 20:21
21I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

The salvation message is John's baptism for repentance, and faith in Jesus. Faith in our Lord Jesus and baptism in the Holy Spirit is the element of the gospel message that Jesus is pairing with repentance and which he is unveiling to Nicodemus.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

“Born again” means receiving the new divine life God gives — the life that transforms the whole interior person and enables one to perceive and respond to the Spirit.

Don't you agree that the new life IS the Holy Spirit?

 

[Episkopos]

What does this term "born again" mean to you?

And how can you be sure you are "born again"?

How does "water and spirit" apply to your understanding of being born again?

The term comes from the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3. What do you make of the fact that the rest of the chapter, immediately aftet this conversation, is focused on baptism?

Being born again is no longer understood in the modern context. It is being enlightened into the eternal reality....being given an eternal perspective that informs the kind of faith we are to walk in. It is a sample of a place that we are meant to sell all in order to enter into.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

It isn’t meaningless for Jesus to refer to natural birth —

I agree that making water mean natural birth could be a superficial message to Nicodemus - "Being born into the flesh is not good enough to see and enter the kingdom of God." Except that I really don't see that was somehow an argument that people made then or now that Jesus should have to address it. It's not relevant or useful to the circumstances of the time. It was clearly understood that repentance to God and the law was the pathway to the kingdom.

He is telling him, “You have already been born of flesh — now you must be born of Spirit.” The contrast only works if “born of flesh” refers to natural birth. Otherwise the dialogue collapses.

The contrast works when one understands that 'water' is referring to turning over a new leaf, as they say, and becoming a new person by turning back to God and his commandments in repentance. Paul does refer to that as birthing a son. And he explains that's the fleshly effort of the covenant of law - flesh birthing flesh. The failed effort of the flesh to fulfill the promise of God. But an effort that is a necessary component of the gospel message of 'repentance and faith in Jesus' (Acts 20:21). John taught the 'water' for repentance part. Jesus taught the 'Spirit' part.

 

[Moonwood]

What you mean is John doesn't specifically call out that he's doing that.

Yes, water = cleansing. Repentance via John's baptism cleanses the outer man, not the inner man. That's why it's not good enough by itself to see and enter into the kingdom of God. That's the exact message that is relevant to Nicodemus and the Jews at this time, for John's ministry of baptism for repentance in preparation for Jesus' baptism by the Spirit is occurring at this time.

John 1:33
33...the one who sent me to baptize with water (for repentance) told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

The understanding I am sharing here is entirely in line with that theme. Besides, Paul tells us quite specifically what it means to be born by/according to the flesh. It's entirely in line with the theme of 'repentance to God and the law and faith in Jesus' in John's letter.

I agree that water and Spirit are being paired together as a single reality of rebirth by the Spirit in salvation, just not the way you say they are.

Acts 20:21
21I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

The salvation message is John's baptism for repentance, and faith in Jesus. Faith in our Lord Jesus and baptism in the Holy Spirit is the element of the gospel message that Jesus is pairing with repentance and which he is unveiling to Nicodemus.

I agree that making water mean natural birth could be a superficial message to Nicodemus - "Being born into the flesh is not good enough to see and enter the kingdom of God." Except that I really don't see that was somehow an argument that people made then or now that Jesus should have to address it. It's not relevant or useful to the circumstances of the time. It was clearly understood that repentance to God and the law was the pathway to the kingdom.

The contrast works when one understands that 'water' is referring to turning over a new leaf, as they say, and becoming a new person by turning back to God and his commandments in repentance. Paul does refer to that as birthing a son. And he explains that's the fleshly effort of the covenant of law - flesh birthing flesh. The failed effort of the flesh to fulfill the promise of God. But an effort that is a necessary component of the gospel message of 'repentance and faith in Jesus' (Acts 20:21). John taught the 'water' for repentance part. Jesus taught the 'Spirit' part.

Don't you agree that the new life IS the Holy Spirit?

You’re importing categories into John that John himself never uses. John never equates “water” with repentance, and he never equates “flesh” with covenantal law‑keeping. In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently refers to cleansing or life, and “flesh” consistently refers to natural, physical birth. You can see this clearly in Johannine anthropology.

And just to clarify: I never said “water = natural birth.” The natural‑birth category in John 3 is “flesh,” not “water.” Jesus pairs water and Spirit together as the single reality of supernatural rebirth. You’re responding to an interpretation I didn’t make.

John 1:33 does not say “water = repentance.” It says John baptizes with water, and Jesus baptizes with the Spirit. You’re adding the repentance‑metonymy yourself.

You’re not only importing Paul into John — you’re also importing Luke’s meaning of “water” (Luke 3:3) into John’s Gospel, even though John uses “water” very differently.

And Paul’s use of “flesh” in Galatians cannot be imported into John 3. John’s contrast is not “law vs. faith,” but natural birth vs. supernatural birth. That is why Nicodemus’s misunderstanding is essential to the argument: he thinks Jesus is talking about physical birth. You call that “superficial,” but Jesus treats it as the foundation of the entire dialogue.

Regarding your question: No, the new life is not identical to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the giver of the new life, not the new life itself. Jesus says, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” — meaning the Spirit generates a new supernatural life in the person, not that the person becomes the Spirit Himself. If the new life were the Holy Spirit, then rebirth would eliminate the possibility of sin, which John explicitly denies (John 3:19-21). The Spirit is the source of the new life, not the substance of the reborn person. See flesh vs Spirit in John 3.

Which brings us to the key point you still haven’t addressed:

If “born of flesh” does not refer to natural birth, what birth is Nicodemus talking about when he asks whether a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time?

Jesus’s correction only makes sense if “born of flesh” refers to natural birth and “born of Spirit” refers to supernatural birth. Otherwise the entire dialogue collapses.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

You’re importing categories into John that John himself never uses. John never equates “water” with repentance, and he never equates “flesh” with covenantal law‑keeping.

It's okay to take the context of the entire Bible into consideration when discerning various teachings. In fact, we should. Paul plainly tells us what being born by/according to the flesh means.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

John never equates “water” with repentance, and he never equates “flesh” with covenantal law‑keeping.

He does if that's what he's talking about. And I've shown from the context of the whole Bible that he probably is.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently refers to cleansing or life

And I addressed this. John's baptism by water for repentance 'births' a natural man, clean on the outside, but unchanged and unspiritual on the inside. Faith in Christ births the spiritual man, a 'son' who inherits the kingdom.

...and “flesh” consistently refers to natural, physical birth. You can see this clearly in Johannine anthropology.

Of course flesh can refer to literal flesh. But, scripturally, it also refers to the fleshly carnal effort of fulfilling the promise of God by relating to God through law keeping. Which is exactly the belief the Jews were steeped in. Jesus is setting them straight on this. As necessary as repentance is, it is by the righteousness of faith in the promise that a man inherits eternal life, not by the righteousness of repentant law keeping.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

And just to clarify: I never said “water = natural birth.” The natural‑birth category in John 3 is “flesh,” not “water.” Jesus pairs water and Spirit together as the single reality of supernatural rebirth. You’re responding to an interpretation I didn’t make.

You do need to clarify, because 'born of water' is indeed referring to 'flesh gives birth to flesh', which you say means natural birth.

John 3:5-6
5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit b gives birth to spirit.

Are you saying 'born of water' does NOT mean natural physical birth - flesh giving birth to flesh? Please clarify.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

John 1:33 does not say “water = repentance.” It says John baptizes with water, and Jesus baptizes with the Spirit.

I honestly thought you knew that John's baptism in water is a baptism for repentance.

Acts 19:4
4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.

Luke 3:3
3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance...

(You had even made a reference to Luke 3:3.)

This is how we know John 1:33 that I quoted is indeed equating 'water' with 'repentance'.

John 1:33
33And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water (for repentance) told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

 

[Moonwood]

It's okay to take the context of the entire Bible into consideration when discerning various teachings. In fact, we should. Paul plainly tells us what being born by/according to the flesh means.

He does if that's what he's talking about. And I've shown from the context of the whole Bible that he probably is.

And I addressed this. John's baptism by water for repentance 'births' a natural man, clean on the outside, but unchanged and unspiritual on the inside. Faith in Christ births the spiritual man, a 'son' who inherits the kingdom.

Of course flesh can refer to literal flesh. But, scripturally, it also refers to the fleshly carnal effort of fulfilling the promise of God by relating to God through law keeping. Which is exactly the belief the Jews were steeped in. Jesus is setting them straight on this. As necessary as repentance is, it is by the righteousness of faith in the promise that a man inherits eternal life, not by the righteousness of repentant law keeping.

You do need to clarify, because 'born of water' is indeed referring to 'flesh gives birth to flesh', which you say means natural birth.

John 3:5-6
5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit b gives birth to spirit.

Are you saying 'born of water' does NOT mean natural physical birth - flesh giving birth to flesh? Please clarify.

I honestly thought you would know that John's baptism in water is a baptism for repentance.

Acts 19:4
4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.

Luke 3:3
3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance...

You even made a reference to Luke 3:3.

This is how we know John 1:33 I quoted is indeed equating 'water' with 'repentance'.

John 1:33
33And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water (for repentance) told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

Appealing to “the entire Bible” doesn’t solve the problem here, because the issue isn’t whether Paul or Luke teach something true — the issue is that you’re letting Paul and Luke override John’s own categories. Appealing to Paul and Luke cannot redefine John’s symbols, because John explains his own terms inside the dialogue — and Nicodemus’s womb question shows exactly what “flesh” means. John defines “flesh” inside the dialogue itself, and he defines it in a way Paul does not: flesh = natural birth. That’s why Nicodemus immediately brings up the literal womb.

Paul’s allegory in Galatians is not John’s anthropology. Luke’s “baptism of repentance” is not John’s symbolism of water. John never equates “water” with repentance, and he never equates “flesh” with covenantal effort. Those categories are being imported from outside John's Gospel.

And this is the key point you still haven’t addressed:

If “born of flesh” does not refer to natural birth, what birth is Nicodemus talking about when he asks whether a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time?

John’s contrast only makes sense if “flesh” refers to natural birth and “Spirit” refers to supernatural birth. If you replace John’s categories with Paul’s and Luke’s, the dialogue collapses.

 

[Hillsage]

I wasn’t saying only the soul is born again. In John 3 the “soul” means the whole interior person.

Personally, I believe only the spirit is born again and that's simply all John says in 3:6 and 8.

KJV JOH 3:6* That which is born (OUT/ἐκ) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (OUT/ἐκ) of the Spirit is spirit.

In the above verse the Greek word ἐκ or OUT is left out twice in our bibles, But it is in the original Greek manuscripts. Go figure.

Jesus then informs Nicodemus about a spiritual birth and not a fleshly birth.

NAS JOH 3:8* "The wind (Gr Spirit) blows (Gr. breathes hard) where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Our human spirit being born from 'out of' the Holy Spirit the first time, is one thing. But being born again is another creation experience. But nothing is mentioned here concerning the soul. Do you have scripture from any translation that speaks of a soul being born again?

John doesn’t divide the human person into “spirit vs. soul” the way Paul sometimes does.

I believe we are 'a triune PERSON' (singular): The body without a soul or a spirit is simply an empty FLESH bucket, or body. But a body is the place where both the spirit and soul dwell. I believe John and Paul both knew this. Are you saying you don't believe they agreed?

Jesus’s contrast is between natural life (“flesh”) and supernatural life (“Spirit”). You can see this clearly in Johannine anthropology.

In your bible, depending on translations of course; The word "soul" SRN 5590 is only found 1x in the gospel of John. This is very unfortunate for those seeking the whole truth. Because SRN 5590 is in the book of John 8X. When we don't know the difference between "soul" "life" and "spirit" "life" things just get fought over...forever....or should I say "Welcome to 'the church'.

Every human being is born with a spirit which came "OUT of" the Holy Spirit of God. But the spirit that came out of the Holy Spirit FROM GOD at our birth, is not a 'born again' human spirit. But because the human spirit came from God's Holy Spirit that spirit is still a divine spirit. That's why Jesus called the pharisees "you are gods" John 10:35. He wasn't speaking of their souls or sinful flesh bodies.

 

[JimKnox]

Ladies and gentlemen:
I present for your edification this example of why certain Fundamentalists say you should never trust any Bible except the 1769 Edition of the KJV.
Pointless debates like this one inevitably arise.
Get rid of your 'modern' translations. They CREATE error.
...............
And now we return to your program.......

 

[Moonwood]

Personally, I believe only the spirit is born again and that's simply all John says in 3:6 and 8.

KJV JOH 3:6* That which is born (OUT/ἐκ) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (OUT/ἐκ) of the Spirit is spirit.

In the above verse the Greek word ἐκ or OUT is left out twice in our bibles, But it is in the original Greek manuscripts. Go figure.

Jesus then informs Nicodemus about a spiritual birth and not a fleshly birth.

NAS JOH 3:8* "The wind (Gr Spirit) blows (Gr. breathes hard) where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Our human spirit being born from 'out of' the Holy Spirit the first time, is one thing. But being born again is another creation experience. But nothing is mentioned here concerning the soul. Do you have scripture from any translation that speaks of a soul being born again?

I believe we are 'a triune PERSON' (singular): The body without a soul or a spirit is simply an empty FLESH bucket, or body. But a body is the place where both the spirit and soul dwell. I believe John and Paul both knew this. Are you saying you don't believe they agreed?

In your bible, depending on translations of course; The word "soul" SRN 5590 is only found 1x in the gospel of John. This is very unfortunate for those seeking the whole truth. Because SRN 5590 is in the book of John 8X. When we don't know the difference between "soul" "life" and "spirit" "life" things just get fought over...forever....or should I say "Welcome to 'the church'.

Every human being is born with a spirit which came "OUT of" the Holy Spirit of God. But the spirit that came out of the Holy Spirit FROM GOD at our birth, is not a 'born again' human spirit. But because the human spirit came from God's Holy Spirit that spirit is still a divine spirit. That's why Jesus called the pharisees "you are gods" John 10:35. He wasn't speaking of their souls or sinful flesh bodies.

I’m using Johannine categories, not the later “spirit vs. soul” distinction. John never divides the human person that way. In John 3, “born of the Spirit” refers to the origin of the new life — it comes from the Holy Spirit — not to a specific component of the human person being regenerated.

Johannine anthropology treats ψυχή as the whole interior life of the person. So when Jesus speaks of rebirth, He is describing the divine life given to the whole person, not only to the human spirit. This is why John 1:13, John 3:3-8, and 1 John 5:1 all describe rebirth as a transformation of the person, not of one part.

John and Paul are not in disagreement; they simply use different anthropological vocabularies. Paul sometimes speaks in a tripartite way (body–soul–spirit), but John does not use that framework. When John contrasts “flesh” and “Spirit,” he is contrasting natural origin with supernatural origin, not dividing the human person into components. So “born of the Spirit” in John 3 refers to the divine source of the new life, not to the regeneration of only the human spirit.

Regarding John 10:35, Jesus is quoting Psalm 82, where “gods” refers to human judges acting as representatives of God. It is not a statement about human spirits being divine in essence.

John and Paul agree on the reality of the new birth — they simply describe it using different categories.