Is baptism part of the new birth?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

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

This.

[Abiding Now]

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.

[seekerman]

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

[Abiding Now]

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.

[seekerman]

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!

[Abiding Now]

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

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

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

But, it ain't saved you.

[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

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

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.

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

[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.