John 3:5 : Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
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:
"Various interpretations have been suggested for the meaning here of "water": (1) it refers to baptism as a requirement for salvation. However, this would contradict many other NT passages (Eph. 2:8-9); (2) it stands for the act of repentance that John the Baptizer's baptism signified; (3) it refers to natural birth (specifically, the fluid released when the amniotic sac breaks prior to labor); thus it means "unless one is born the first time by water and the second time by the Spirit"; (4) it means the Word of God, as in 15:3; (5) it is a synonym for the Holy Spirit and may be translated, "by water, even the Spirit." One truth is clear: the new birth is from God through the Spirit."
I can "buy" more than one of these, but the first one does contradict other NT scripture.
FK: "This directly contradicts scripture, so I would like to ask how you would square this requirement against Eph. 2:8-9?"
Where is the contradiction? In infant baptism, the faith of the sponsor (the parents, typically) supplies the faith, ad the sacrament of the water and the prayers supplies the grace.
I don't believe that faith by proxy is scriptural. The story of the paralytic is ambiguous. Who is the "their" of "their faith"? That could go either way. Plus, the whole idea makes man not responsible for his sin. Under faith by proxy, justification can be achieved by who you know, not what you believe. That concerns me.
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
Ephesians 2:8-9 does not contradict John 3:5, provided you distinguish between personal and original sin.
John 3:5 speaks of a necessary condition for salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 speaks of the mechanism of it. One must be born again of the water and spirit, -- as clear reference to the baptism as any in the gospel, -- and the salvation comes through faith by grace. Both passages are addressed to adults, and an adult needs to be saved from both original sin and personal sin. Baptism is necessary for the first objective (John 3:5) and fully formed faith for the second (Eph 2:8). An infant possesses no informed will, is not therefore capable of personal sin, and likewise has no well-formed faith. All pieces match.