Replies

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.

John 3 is improperly rendered "born again" in many Protestant bibles. The Greek uses "anothen", which means "from above" or "top" or "from the first". Everywhere else, this is how it is interpreted. Thus, Jesus is telling Nicodemus one must be born from above, from heaven, from the Spirit. Everywhere else, reference to water in the NT is refering to the washing of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. It is this event that buries the Christian with Christ and enables the Christian to rise again.

I only commented on my disagreement with faith by proxy.

Do you disagree on the concept of "by proxy" on everything else, or JUST faith? And if it is YOUR faith at question, then doesn't that throw the whole "I don't cooperate" idea out of whack?

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

So is belief strictly from God without any human response? Does a human have anything to do with being a believer so that he is justified? I sense a contradiction here. You say that Baptism can ONLY be given to believers, as if it was from them, then you say that God ALONE gives ALL faith. So why can't a baby be baptized if it is all from God?

Regards

I'm not sure of the distinction you are drawing. What is the difference between "born again" and "born of the Spirit"? I see them as identical.

Everywhere else, reference to water in the NT is referring to the washing of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I totally agree, with the slight modification of replacing "Everywhere else" with "No where in the Bible". Other than that, we're on the same page. :)

Do you disagree on the concept of "by proxy" on everything else, or JUST faith? And if it is YOUR faith at question, then doesn't that throw the whole "I don't cooperate" idea out of whack?

My faith is very dependent on the idea of proxy. Christ died for me, and paid for and remitted my sins, all by proxy. Such is the nature and power of God. However, in spiritual matters, I don't believe that humans have the power to believe on behalf of other humans. I believe that we are to have a relationship with Christ that is very personal. You can't have a personal relationship by proxy.

Yes, there is a response from the person at the point of belief. However, this response was predestined by God, and is therefore guaranteed. Unlike me, many believers can't point to a specific day when they "became a believer". They will say things like "I have always believed". That is legitimate, but implicit in that statement is the truth there was by definition a time when the person did not believe because he was too young to know what to believe in.

So, I think it is consistent to say that belief does come from God, and the person must respond to that gift (all of the elect do via predestination). Infants cannot participate in the response, and when you say they do by proxy, then that eliminates free will in the Catholic sense. Why can't I just say that all of my free will, in the Catholic sense, is accomplished by God through proxy? Surely if you say humans can believe by proxy you will allow God to have all of my free will by proxy, won't you?