Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Is water baptism part of the new birth or 'born again' experience?

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

So interesting that I start my latest thread and this poll is up!

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Yes its part of the new birth. We are not "fully" saved until we are baptized.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

AMEN!!!!

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Can't answer the poll because while it IS a commandment to do so, if one were to repent and during their walk to the baptismal pool something happened to interrupt the process -say, a heart attack, they would still be saved. The thief on the cross next to Jesus was clearly NOT baptized, but had he not been crucified (released somehow with the help of a caring Roman soldier) would have no doubt done it. We are also commanded to fellowship with other saints, but if you "get saved" and die before your first church service or ANY meeting with like minded saints, does that mean your not saved because you didn't do it?

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

How is it you cannot answer the poll? Seems like your answer would be 'no'. The question is not 'is baptism commanded' but 'is baptism part of the new birth'.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Yes it is a commandment to do so. But for what PURPOSE?

5 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

To be saved!

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39

For remission of sins!

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

In all my life I've never even heard of a person dying on the way to be baptized. :D The guy on the cross was before the new testament church was established and was under the Old Covenant, because the testator of the New Covenant had not died.

...and would Peter and Paul disagree?

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

My response to THAT is always, so it was EASIER to be saved in the OT than the new?

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Note the verse you just quoted, it does NOT say "16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned. Mark 16:16"

Again, I see the commandment to do so and perhaps someone who refuses to follow through with it may be in a certain amount of trouble based on their individual circumstances. I certainly felt the need to be baptized but I felt no more saved after I came out of the water than when I went in. For me, I felt the most "saved" for during the whole "three step process" was when I received the GIFT of the Holy Ghost, which happened simultaneously with repentance. Baptism took place a few weeks later.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Hitting the nail on the head!

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Nobody was "saved" in the OT. Some were just spared punishment after death, waiting for Messiah to redeem them.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

How hard is it to get baptised?

And, why does the NT place an emphasis on baptism that all the 'baptism is not essential' crowd never do?

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Lets see...where does it say in the scripture that baptism is NOT part of the New Birth or part of the salvation process???.....nowhere...and does it indicate anywhere that it is....PLENTY!!!

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Well 9 for 3 against so far. That's actually better than I would have hoped for.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

No new birth without old death...

Romans 6:3-11,

As it is written:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:24).

Unless one is planted in the likeness of Christ's death through baptism, it's hard to see how they could ever honestly hope to walk in newness of life and partake in the likeness of His resurrection (without seriously wresting this verse, as Simon Peter once mentioned [and warned against] in 2 Peter 3:16).

Only when the old man is crucified with Christ and is buried with Him into death by baptism should one expect for the body of sins to be destroyed. Only then can such a person truly reckon himself or herself dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ; otherwise death would still have dominion over him or her (or else Paul's teaching here makes no applicable sense).

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I write a more in-depth treatment at my blog, for any interested readers:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/2013...missing-piece/

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I've never personally met anyone who argues against baptism, the question was is it necessary to miss hell, go to heaven. I've also never met anyone personally who believed that baptism saved them.

It's been a while since I've told the story of a visiting UPC minister at a church I was attending at the time. This is per the UPC minister, the validity of the story is dependent on one believing him or not.

As he told it, there was a young woman who attending a church service at the church which he was pastoring at the time. (As far as I know, he still pastors the same church). The young lady was convicted at a Sunday night service, came to the altar and received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. She was scheduled for a baptismal service the following Wednesday but tragically was killed in a car accident on Tuesday. I remember his wrestling with the issue, was she saved or not. I'm paraphrasing, but his comment, from the pulpit, was 'well some of you may not examine such issues but we ministers think about such things'. He never came to a conclusion as to the destination of the unfortunate young woman, heaven or hell, but he was having issues dealing with a real life event.

If the young woman went (or is going) to hell, then she went (or is going) to hell full of the Holy Ghost. If the young woman went (or is going) to heaven, then she went (or is going) to heaven without baptism.

Must a person be baptized to saved (miss hell, go to heaven)? No. Will a person be baptized if they're a child of God, yes. In my opinion, if one believes themselves to be a child of God then there is no question about being baptized, they'll do it. But, that doesn't make them a child of God.

An important thing to remember, that may clear this up for some of you, is that we aren't redeemed by the water of the Lamb.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

If baptism is not for salvation, the new birth, remission of sins, or regeneration it has no purpose at all. If he has no purpose I certainly would not try to tell someone they need to do it.

For having no purpose it sure seemed important to the Apostles! Its just that whats important to Christ is not always important to the "believer".

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Seems that according to the poll results, the majority of people here are not 'one steppers'.

You wouldn't think it, but it sure looks like the statistics indicate that...

:icecream

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I guess he could have responded....it was easier to escape punishment in the old testament....same point.....fortunately for the thief Jesus had not completed mission.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Speaking of the thieves on the crosses at Calvary, both had a TOTALLY UNIQUE opportunity that no one had ever had before and no one would ever have again and yet FIFTY percent were lost. Says something about human nature.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Here is a little article I wrote some time back concerning the "thief on the cross" argument against the necessity of baptism.

The question has often been asked: If baptism is necessary for salvation, was the thief on the cross saved? I believe a careful examination of the scriptural text will provide a sound Biblical answer.

Luke 23:32
And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

Luke 23: 39-43
39. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41. And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

In this text we see that the thief (malefactor) first defended Christ’s innocence and then addressed him with contrition, and respect. His humble request was “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” While some would discount this “Lord” as merely a customary greeting out of respect, I believe his reference to the Lordship of Christ is of great importance.

First, it should be noted that this discourse took place prior to the death of Christ, which placed the thief under the dispensation/period of law. This fact alone should enlighten us to the fact that his (the thief’s) response and the ensuing outcome, was different than what is required of us today. Jesus’ response was very direct, and yet has been the subject of much debate, due to a misunderstanding of terms. Notice Jesus said “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Let us first examine what he did NOT say.

He did not say:
Today your sins are forgiven.
Today you are/will be saved.
Today you will be in heaven with me.

We must be careful not to wrest the scriptures to our own destruction! Jesus stated that the thief would be with him in paradise. To equate paradise to heaven would create a theological train wreck, for when Jesus arose from the dead and was seen of Mary he warned her: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” John 20:17 (KJV) This statement by the risen Lord, proves that what he referred to as paradise during his crucifixion, was not the eternal home (heaven) of those redeemed through the shedding of his blood.

Paradise was, according to Jewish theology, a place where the souls of the pious, (those who were righteous under the law) were held until the resurrection. Another name used interchangeably was “Abraham’s Bosom.” Understanding the concept of “paradise” as it relates to the thief on the cross brings a powerful understanding of the substitutionary work of Calvary.

The Apostle Paul teaches us in Romans the fourth chapter that “Abraham believed God, and it was counted (imputed) unto him for righteousness.” The belief/faith, imputed to Abraham as righteousness, is the same belief/faith with which the thief on the cross believed, and likewise it was accounted to him as righteousness. Yet if Christ had not died these all would have perished, as the writer of Hebrews reminds us by saying; “these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:” (Heb. 11:39) Had the imputed righteousness (as a result of Abrahams belief/faith) been adequate for salvation, then the belief/faith of the thief would have been sufficient as well. Belief/faith, however, demands a response/action.

The Old Covenant response to belief/faith was to offer a sacrifice. Yet, the sacrifice of bulls and goats only provided a temporary reprieve from the penalty of sin. The thief through his belief was imputed righteousness, yet he needed a sacrifice to satisfy the guilt/penalty of his sins. Jesus, by consigning him to paradise, made him a benefactor of the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Thus, when the blood of Jesus was shed, it flowed backward to cover/remit the sins/iniquities of those in paradise.

The New Covenant response to belief/faith is likewise a sacrifice. Our belief/faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is evidenced by our willingness to sacrifice self at the altar of repentance. Therefore, If a man says he has belief/faith in Jesus Christ, yet is not willing to repent, (sacrifice his own will, desires, and nature) his actions prove his lack of faith.

A growing number among the Apostolic ranks, are teaching that belief/faith when combined with repentance equates salvation. This heresy often comes from their erroneous application of the thief’s belief/confession, and Jesus’ subsequent promise of paradise. We must, however, rightly divide the Word of God, lest we make those who hear/follow us two-fold children of hell. Without the shed blood of Jesus the thief never could have been saved! His confession did not equate to remission of his sins. The mercy/grace of God allowed him to be placed into paradise; (upon his death) it was however, the blood of the Lamb of God that secured his salvation. Likewise, we are not saved by belief/faith and repentance alone, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

Finally, we must understand that belief/faith + repentance + baptism do not in and of themselves, equate salvation. Jesus said, “except a man be born of water and of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.” (John 3:5) If a man through faith has sacrificed himself (repentance) and been buried/washed in the blood, he remains a dead, lifeless creature except he is resurrected to walk in newness of life.

Romans 8:9-11
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Does anyone really believe baptism saves?

yes, they do

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I am fairly certain there is not one person on this forum that believes baptism alone saves. However, myself and a few others, do believe that the "finished work of Calvary" is not realized absent of baptism. Just because Christ died for the sins of the whole world does not mean they are all forgiven and abolished without baptism.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I've never meet anyone who believes baptism saves, even the ones who quote the verse that says baptism saves. It's always baptism plus other stuff.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Bishop, In the poll, I answered I am not sure,because I believe in the importance of Baptism but that being said It does not mean that sins are not forgiven without Baptism.

Sometimes I think we don't give the blood of Christ enough credit.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

This.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Water baptism in Jesus Name is a vital PART of the new birth, just like faith, repentance and the Spirit. Leave out a part (any part) and you do not have a complete NT new birth experience. No complete NT new birth experience and the person is lost.

Joh 3:5 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.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I don't want to say I told you, but....I told you.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Jas 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Nuh uh!

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I'm saved! Thank God for water baptism in Jesus name that has given me "the answer of a good conscience toward God".

:shockamoo

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

But, it ain't saved you.

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

I agree....when people do not believe in the necessity of baptism, they do not give the blood of Christ enough credit! :smack How ya like that? Just joking/kind of.

Biblically can you point to where the blood is applied/washes away sin outside of baptism? Acts 2:38 says baptism is for the remission of sins. I know some here will argue that the "for" is "because" sins have been forgiven/washed away. However, Elder Epley posted a copy of responses from something like 20+ Greek Scholars/professors from places like Harvard and other well respected institutions of higher learning who without exception stated that the context of Acts 2:38 was "to receive remission/forgiveness" not because of. (This was in response to a letter sent to each one asking them to give their opinion on the grammatical construct and subsequent meaning.)

I have a copy of it on my other computer, and if Elder Epley doesn't beat me to it I will post it.

Paul was told to arise and be baptized wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord. (Paul's personal testimony Acts 22:16)

Why would the Apostles command baptism if it was optional? A commandment is not a suggestion, it is a requirement.

Just some thoughts from the peanut gallery:happydance

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Exactly. And really should WE have to feel guilty about it as if it were WE who made the plan of salvation? It was Jesus the Christ who gave us this way. The Apostles were not ashamed of it.

The first sermon ever preached in the New Covenant Church Peter could have EASILY said:

BELIEVE for the remission of sins!

That's exactly what many would have been much more happy with. They could really get into a message like that!

But nonetheless Peter actually said:

Repent and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Re: Is baptism part of the new birth?
 

Assuming that's when the blood is applied, that means that if a person needs something other than the blood of Christ for salvation then the blood of the Lamb isn't sufficient in and of itself.

Nothing but the blood of Jesus for salvation or the blood of Jesus plus something else for salvation?

And I'd be interested in you posting the article if you would.

Thanks.