We are Born Again at the Resurrection not when we're Saved

The casual terminology of saying we are Born Again when we're Saved is a misunderstanding of John 3.  Doesn't mean I think everyone who uses it understands Salvation incorrectly, it just means we need to clear up some terminology.

Before I explain this view, I want to distance myself from certain others teaching this same thing but tying it into other bad ideas.

Some over emphasize the use of the word "Spirit" in John 3 to support viewing the Resurrection as only Spiritual and not a physical Bodily Resurrection.  That is Gnostic Heresy.

And some try to connect this to their denial of Eternal Security.  I don't base my Belief in Eternal Security on the verses about being Born Again, or Born of God, or any of that.  That's Calvinism not true Eternal Security.  I base it on the verses in John 3 about "Whosoever Believeth on him shall not Perish but have eternal life", it's not Eternal if it can be lost.  And other verses showing that even the seemingly professing Christians who are damned are all those who NEVER knew Him.  And how none shall pluck them out of His hand.  And 1 Corinthians 3:15 showing that at the Bema Judgment there will be people who's works are burnt up but are still saved.

Since the moment we Believe is the conception not birth, they'll point out that sometimes babies miscarry.  A child Begotten of God cannot miscarry.  I think the Man-Child of Revelation 12 can represent The Church and individual Believers as much as it does Jesus himself.  We are the Body of Christ and also promised to "rule the Nations with a Rod of Iron".  Satan wants to prevent the Child from being Born, which is why he accuses us when we Sin.  But it is impossible for him to succeed.  The Man-Child is then Raptured, same Greek word as in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is when we are Resurrected.

We are already Begotten of God

1 Peter 1:3 says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead".  Begotten is a word that refers to conception, not to birth.

1 Peter 1:23 is mistranslated in the KJV "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."  The Greek text here does not use the same word used describing the Born Again concept elsewhere, it should read begotten again, Peter's instead using the same word he used in verse 3.  The two Greek words are similar but distinct.  This is not based on Alexandrian manuscripts, I'm using the Textus Receptus.

We are God's Children already just as a parent considers a baby still in the womb their child already.  But Son of God as a technical term applies when we're completely redeemed in the Resurrection, like how it applies to Angels and to Adam before The Fall.

Romans 8:16-21 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

We are fully the Children of God when we are free from The Curse of Genesis 3, which is what Romans 8 is all about.

James 1:18 "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures."  "First Fruits" is a term linked to the Resurrection, that's why Jesus Resurrection was on the Feast of First Fruits.

1 John uses various forms of the same root that the word for born and begat come from, that the Strongs all label one word, and how the KJV renders it can cause confusion.

1 John 3:9 is correct in the KJV, it's abused by those trying to say a Believer cannot Sin.  But this same Epistle John explains we Lie if we say we do not Sin.

1 John 4:7 it should read begotten, it's showing how anyone following the Biblical Law of Love is saved and knows God.

1 John 5:1 is also correct.  John 5:4 should be Begotten, everyone who's Saved has Overcome the World in once sense according to John.  But that can be distinct from Overcoming to the End.  1 John 5:18 is also correct, but what it means is also abused, but it shows the distinction between being Born and Begotten.

In John 3 itself Jesus says that those who are Born Again are those who can see The Kingdom.  To say that is true of Believers already takes what he means a lot less literally.  When we are Resurrected we will no longer be limited to our current 3 dimensional perception.

Calvinists think Free Will somehow contradicts the Sovereignty of God

Let me make myself clear.

God can override our Free Will, he can make us all do what he wants, he can force us to accept Jesus.

But he chooses not to, he wants everyone to come to him, but he would prefer to accept as his Children only those who want to be his Children.

It has nothing to do with the Sovereignty of God.

Calvinists are a lot like many Atheists and others who reject Christianity all together.  They think in order for God to be Sovereign then what does happen must be what he wants to happen.

Teaching Men not to Rape

Among those conservatives who choose to object to modern Feminism and it's talk about "Rape Culture", the most popular argument is taking offense at the notion that men need to be "Taught not to Rape", that it's somehow insulting to men to suggest Rape in inherent in them.

It's most amusing to me when I see people who are Evangelical Christians do this.  Because among the arguments we make when attempting to explain the doctrine of Original Sin (the true Biblical doctrine, not what it means to Catholics or Calvinists), will be to ask parents if they needed to teach their children to lie or steal?  The answer is no, they had to teach them not to lie and not to steal.

Rape is also part of the Sin nature, and not all forms of it are obvious.  Many men, as surprising as this may seem, have trouble comprehending that it's wrong to have sex with a woman who's passed out.

Perhaps many "Traditional" Christians think since they're teaching their kids not to have sex outside marriage at all that Rape isn't an issue then.

1. Rape can happen within marriage. Some Bible verses may get misused to justify/deny marital rape by making it seem one spouse is obligated to fulfill the needs of the other.  But none of that makes it right to force yourself on someone who doesn't want to right now.  And since the Torah has laws against lying with your wife while she's menstruating, it certainly knows people can't simply have sex on demand.

2. I've argued elsewhere forcing an overly strict moral standard on people can wind up leading to them abandoning trying to be moral altogether.  Especially if on sexual morality your teaching children based on an imaginary Bible verse that masturbation is somehow worse then prostitution.

So no matter how legalistic you are, at least begin your lessons on Sexual Morality by explaining that the worst Sexual Sin is Rape.  Mainly because it's more then a Sexual Sin, it's a violation of someone's personal Liberty.  And so any sexual act that is fully and unambiguously consensual would be preferable.

I will say it would be helpful to rephrase "Teach people not to Rape" because women can rape also, The Bible even records an example with Lot's daughters.

Free Will before Pelagius

[Update January 2026: I no longer hold this view on Free Will, and note that none of these predate Plutarchian Middle Platonism bringing to Influence Christianity in the mid Second Century.]

Plato, Augustine, and Traditional Christianity

[Update: This is out of date.]