Is baptism part of the new birth?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by bishoph

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.

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.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

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

This.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

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.

I agree....when people do not believe in the necessity of baptism, they do not give the blood of Christ enough credit! 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

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by bishoph

I agree....when people do not believe in the necessity of baptism, they do not give the blood of Christ enough credit! 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

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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.

In other words, faith is not necessary for salvation, because that would be the blood 'plus something else'. Anyone who teaches faith is necessary to be saved, is saying the blood isn't sufficient.

And the same goes for repentance as well. Repentance is not necessary to be saved, because that would be the blood 'plus something else'. And that would mean the blood is not sufficient.

Therefore, anyone who teaches faith is necessary to be saved, believes the blood is not sufficient.

And anyone who teaches repentance is necessary to be saved, believes the blood is not sufficient.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In other words, faith is not necessary for salvation, because that would be the blood 'plus something else'. Anyone who teaches faith is necessary to be saved, is saying the blood isn't sufficient.

And the same goes for repentance as well. Repentance is not necessary to be saved, because that would be the blood 'plus something else'. And that would mean the blood is not sufficient.

Therefore, anyone who teaches faith is necessary to be saved, believes the blood is not sufficient.

And anyone who teaches repentance is necessary to be saved, believes the blood is not sufficient.

The conclusion then, one cannot know when one is saved? Repentance is insufficient, confession is insufficient, water baptism is insufficient, faith is insufficient, the blood of the Lamb is insufficient, infilling of the Spirit is insufficient, mercy is insufficient and grace is insufficient....to list a few of the things which alone are insufficient for salvation.

Since everything is insufficient in and of itself, what alone is sufficient, if anything? How can anyone be assured of salvation?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

The conclusion then, one cannot know when one is saved? Repentance is insufficient, confession is insufficient, water baptism is insufficient, faith is insufficient, the blood of the Lamb is insufficient, infilling of the Spirit is insufficient, mercy is insufficient and grace is insufficient....to list a few of the things which alone are insufficient for salvation.

Since everything is insufficient in and of itself, what alone is sufficient, if anything? How can anyone be assured of salvation?

If baptism is part of the new birth, does that suddenly throw everything into doubt?

I fail to see how it could. In fact, I see just the opposite. 'Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith'. how can one do a self examination to see if they are in the faith, except by matching their experiences and beliefs to what was delivered by the apostles? And that which was delivered by the apostles is recorded in the New Testament scriptures. Therefore, if your religion doesn't match theirs, then you are not 'in the faith'.

They taught baptism saves us, not one Christian is the bible remained unbaptised, they proclaimed baptism for the remission of sins, they taught 'born again' means 'born of water and spirit', etc etc.

Furthermore, in looking at church history, there was NEVER a debate about whether or not baptism was part of the new birth UNTIL the rise of Protestantism, in particular those pietists who eschewed baptism, communion, and other such things. With the onslaught of the 'evangelical' movement, and certain Arminian baptist theologies, the whole 'baptism is just a ritual that is done to declare you are already saved, and were already born again' line of thinking came unto vogue.

The denial that baptism is not part of the new birth is actually a Johnny-come-lately heresy.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If baptism is part of the new birth, does that suddenly throw everything into doubt?

I fail to see how it could. In fact, I see just the opposite. 'Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith'. how can one do a self examination to see if they are in the faith, except by matching their experiences and beliefs to what was delivered by the apostles? And that which was delivered by the apostles is recorded in the New Testament scriptures. Therefore, if your religion doesn't match theirs, then you are not 'in the faith'.

They taught baptism saves us, not one Christian is the bible remained unbaptised, they proclaimed baptism for the remission of sins, they taught 'born again' means 'born of water and spirit', etc etc.

Furthermore, in looking at church history, there was NEVER a debate about whether or not baptism was part of the new birth UNTIL the rise of Protestantism, in particular those pietists who eschewed baptism, communion, and other such things. With the onslaught of the 'evangelical' movement, and certain Arminian baptist theologies, the whole 'baptism is just a ritual that is done to declare you are already saved, and were already born again' line of thinking came unto vogue.

The denial that baptism is not part of the new birth is actually a Johnny-come-lately heresy.

Hear Hear!!

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by bishoph

I agree....when people do not believe in the necessity of baptism, they do not give the blood of Christ enough credit! 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

Bishop to be honest, I don't know that I don't believe that Baptism is just an option. I think it is the total part of salvation, I don't think that you can separate Baptism from Salvation. Does that make sense?