Nicholas Hay

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@TheOtherPaul2 @sincead33 Did he imply something like this?

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@mavilier @sacred_pop @Truth_matters20 Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"... scripture says exactly the words you denied

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

I don't deny that Jesus *can* save anyone he wants without water baptism.
The question is what is the *normative means* he has given us to receive that work that he has done for us. Calling it a work, or an addition or competitor to Christ's work would be like calling Naaman's washing trying to earn God's healing power - that's the point of the analogy.
Do you think Naaman earned his healing? It seems that's what your view of baptism would imply.
We're probably not going to progress from here so feel free to have the last word, but I'd ask that you'd look at all the passages in scripture that speak on baptism, and prayerfully consider what it's communicating.
You said it yourself, we are baptized "into Christ". Salvation happens in union with Christ.
God bless.

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@mavilier @sacred_pop @Truth_matters20 Baptism's relation to faith is part of what leads to a disagreement on it's role in justification.
You put baptism on the works side of "saved by faith, not by works", scripture puts baptism on the faith side. This is because baptism is given/done by God, and received by faith

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

We're talking past each other.
I never said advocates of baptismal regeneration don't think it's necessary. I said arguing against them by saying "it doesn't earn salvation" is like saying "faith alone means obedience doesn't matter" - it's not an argument against a real position, it's a strawman.
Same thing with "baptism replaces faith". There's not a single advocate of baptismal regeneration that argues that. This is what I'm saying. You're not making arguments against a real position, only a strawman.
I didn't say Naaman's washing establishes that, I said it shows that baptism need not be construed as something other than an act of faith in God's promise, and therefore the argument that "it doesn't earn justification" is moot

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

Your original post suggests that if a person plays a role in willing to have faith in Christ then this would give them grounds for boasting.
But you seem to believe there's an element of participation/cooperation in sanctification (as the reformed tradition affirms)
I'm asking on what basis spirit empowered action at the moment of faith would give grounds for boasting, if spirit empowered action in sanctification doesn't

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@BeggarWithBread So, if one grants that a person, on their own, apart from God's power can't have faith, but that this power doesn't move them of necessity to faith, why would that give more grounds for boasting than God's enabling power in sanctification does?

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@BeggarWithBread Powered by God's grace and God's active power and passivity aren't the same thing. Can you specify further?
In other words, God enabled action doesn't necessitate passivity. Can you elaborate on why you think it's passive and what passive cooperation means in sanctification?

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

My point is that you're arguing as if the only way to see baptism as a means of justification is as something that earns it.
But the Biblical text doesn't depict baptism as our work. It consistently puts it on the faith side of the faith and works. Gal 3:27 is a good example.
A helpful illustration is Naaman in the old testament. When Naaman is told to wash in the Jordan for his healing, is this merely a response to a healing he's already received? No. Does that mean by washing in the Jordan he earned his healing? No.
Washing in the Jordan was an act of faith in the word of God through the prophet that if he wishes to be healed, this is what he should do.
No one is arguing that baptism *earns* justification, so if you're going to argue against baptismal regeneration, don't argue against thinking it earns something.

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

I know what you're attempting to address.
Is it your belief that people who believe the position you're objecting thing baptism is earning them the thing they're receiving there? Or that they're receiving it because their body is becoming clean? Because those are the arguments you put forth.

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@mavilier @sacred_pop @Truth_matters20 I didn't say that alone proves anypoint.
Why're you arguing against those points if you're aware that's not what baptismal regeneration is?
Better to steel-man the positions you disagree with.

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@mavilier @sacred_pop @Truth_matters20 Is it your understanding that those who hold to baptismal regeneration 1. believe it saves because it "earns forgiveness" and 2. believe that it saves because it is "the removal of the filth of the flesh"?

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@forsman_josh @treydonlunot Any good works to read on this claim?

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@ManassehRJones @MrTimothyRenfro No, because those who are punished are the due recipients of punishment

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@AletheiaHS @ManassehRJones @MrTimothyRenfro exactly my point

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@ManassehRJones @AletheiaHS @MrTimothyRenfro I'm not sure why you continue to say this when @MrTimothyRenfro has explicitly denied that he believes that the Lord didn't sovereignly work/plan the cross

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

PSA's understanding of what it means to satisfy God's justice or wrath is that the punishment for sin must be paid for God to forgive.
On PSA, the mechanism for this occurring is that our sin, or liability for punishment (not personal sins) is imputed to Christ, which enables God to (from a legal perspective), justly exhaust the punishment, or wrath for our sins upon Christ, allowing him to then forgive us while remaining just in his treatment of sin.

On the view that Timothy is defending via the fathers, Christ's death is unjust, meaning that he doesn't legally become to due recipient of it via the imputation of our sins. The reason this matters is because this is why his death breaks the power of death and the devil. It was an overreach - the wages of sin is death. Death takes those who have sinned. But because Christ, the sinless one, dies, death overreaches and it's power is broken and undone.

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@ManassehRJones @MrTimothyRenfro @MrTimothyRenfro said he has no problem with God decreeing it.

Don’t you believe that God decreed whatsoever comes to pass? Surely that doesn’t mean nothing unjust happens.

It also doesn’t follow that because this is what Christ had to do for our redemption, that it’s just

[Nicholas Hay @Nickkhay]

@Arcadian1770 What works would you suggest reading through to improve my understanding here?