Replies

I AM a Baptist, so there is no way I am against Baptism, I am very much in favor of it. :) However, it is not at all crystal clear that this verse requires Baptism for salvation. Here is what Ryrie says about it

Interesting, but wrong. Baptism doesn't contradict Eph 2:8-9 at all. Baptism is not a "work", since it is God's Spirit that is performing the "action", based on the promise that God made to His Church. When the Church fulfills the command of Christ, He has promised to work through the sacrament, whether it is the Eucharist, Baptism, Holy Orders, or Confession. This is a sacrament, a visible sign of God's invisible graces. Thus, Baptism is the fulfillment of God's promise to give new birth to the baptized.

And thinking that the "water" is the amniotic fluid? Does Ryrie even bother to read where Christ refutes Nichodemus idea of a natural birth? You can't read just one verse without reading the verses before and after it! He is correct in the end - the new birth is from God through the Spirit. But to say that baptism is not a normative requirement is to contradict OTHER Scriptures which talk about Baptism FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS! How exactly does one become saved without the remission of sins?

I don't believe that faith by proxy is scriptural

Ever read the Old Testament?

Under faith by proxy, justification can be achieved by who you know, not what you believe. That concerns me.

So what you are saying is that you are only saved when you have "x" amount of faith - as determined by the individual? Is faith a gift? Why now does it depend on you to be saved?

Regards

And thinking that the "water" is the amniotic fluid? Does Ryrie even bother to read where Christ refutes Nicodemus idea of a natural birth? You can't read just one verse without reading the verses before and after it!

I know where Ryrie is coming from, and truth be told, this is the way I read it the first time myself, without having any background. Now I understand that it can be taken either way. This argument holds that Christ says that you have to be born TWICE (born again), one birth by water (regular birth) and a second birth by the Spirit (salvation, but not involving baptism as its cause). Seen in this light I think the passage does make sense. Nicodemus wondered if both births were in the regular sense. Jesus corrected him.

FK: "Under faith by proxy, justification can be achieved by who you know, not what you believe. That concerns me."

So what you are saying is that you are only saved when you have "x" amount of faith - as determined by the individual? Is faith a gift? Why now does it depend on you to be saved?

No, I am not saying that. I only commented on my disagreement with faith by proxy. I have always maintained that individuals never determine their own salvations. Only God does that. When I said "...justification can be achieved by who you know, not what you believe." you assumed that I meant that "belief" came from the individual, when my position all along has been that belief (or faith) comes only from God. Only believers are justified.