Thank you for reading this. I’m trying something a little different here. I am speaking into text while at work, so I will most certainly need to edit this later. If you find anything totally crazy or uncharacteristic, please extend a little grace—or kindly let me know.
The last thing I want to do is make a theological assertion that crosses into heresy.
Some of my Calvinist and Reformed friends (and I could rightly call them brethren) will likely never read this. I wish they would. The ones who do rarely comment, perhaps for fear of starting a debate.
Let me be clear: I do not want to debate, argue, fight, hurt feelings, or start a war. None of that advances the cause of Christ (2 Timothy 2:24–25).
But I do want to address what appears to me to be an inconsistency in the way many of my Calvinist friends present the gospel. I doubt they are aware of it. If they are, that would be more concerning.
Let me explain.
A Little Personal Background
The first 26 years of my life were spent in churches that identified as IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist). My father was a preacher and pastor. My mother was always the pianist or organist. If the church doors were open—even for cleaning—I was there.
Because of that upbringing, I am deeply familiar with the words of Jesus to Nicodemus:
“Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)
Those words were printed on tracts, painted above pulpits and choirs, and preached in countless sermons. Everyone knew what they meant. They were synonymous with being “saved.”
Jesus came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).
He came as the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2), the Lamb of God (John 1:29), so that we might be reconciled to the Father (2 Corinthians 5:18–19).
It is no wonder that “Ye must be born again” became a well-worn phrase among those who could sing all 50 verses of Just As I Am during an invitation.
When Nicodemus was confused—imagining a second physical birth—Jesus gently corrected him:
“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)
The new birth was not a return to the womb, but the work of the Spirit:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6)
What “Born Again” Means in Baptist Theology
Whether IFB or now SBC (which I am), Baptists have never implied that being born again involves re-entering a physical womb. Rather, we teach that to be saved, one must be born again.
The phrases are interchangeable.
To be born again is:
- To become a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17)
- To pass from death unto life (John 5:24)
- To be adopted into the family of God (Romans 8:15)
- To be redeemed (Ephesians 1:7)
- To be grafted in (Romans 11:17)
- To be justified (Romans 5:1)
We are not saved by baptism or by partaking of communion.
We are not saved by works, “lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).
We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.
And once saved, we are secure (John 10:28–29).
Spirit baptism places us into Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), and water baptism pictures that reality.
In short, in this theological framework, being born again is salvation.
The Calvinist Distinction
Here is where the tension arises.
In Calvinist theology, being born again is not synonymous with being saved. It is the prerequisite to salvation.
Regeneration precedes faith.
In that system, one does not believe and then receive new life. Rather, one receives new life so that he can believe.
The terms are not interchangeable.
Yet when listening to a Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian preacher call sinners to repentance—to “seek and save the lost,” to “compel them to come in” (Luke 14:23)—you will often hear the same words:
“Ye must be born again.”
But here is my question: is that consistent with their theology?
If a Calvinist were to frame his appeal strictly according to his system, it might sound something like this:
“If you have been regenerated by God, you will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as evidence that you were chosen before the foundation of the world” (cf. Ephesians 1:4).
But that is not how the appeal is typically made.
Instead, the language used is almost identical to that of the non-Calvinist evangelist.
Where the Difference Shows
The greatest visible difference between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist emerges in the appeal to the lost.
The non-Calvinist genuinely believes the lost man can respond. He urges him to repent (Acts 17:30), to believe (Acts 16:31), to receive the free gift of salvation (Romans 6:23). He speaks to him as one who is spiritually dead but able—by grace—to respond to the gospel call.
The Calvinist, however, believes the lost man cannot respond unless first regenerated.
Yet the language in the pulpit often sounds the same.
My concern is this: if regeneration and salvation are not the same thing in one’s theology, should they be spoken of as though they are?
A Plea for Consistency
I write this with hope—not hostility.
If a professing Calvinist happens to read this, perhaps he might consider whether using one set of terms in one setting while defining them differently in another creates confusion.
At best, it may be inconsistent.
At worst, it may blur important theological distinctions.
We owe the lost clarity.
We owe our brethren honesty.
And we owe Christ precision in the proclamation of His gospel (Titus 2:7–8).
The Recovering Legalist 