What is the Anglican view of Baptism?

Consular brought up a great point in another thread. What is your idea of Anglican's stance on Baptism?

 

Anglicanism has been comprehensive since the Elizabethan Settlement. I find it quite amazing that some deny this.

 

Comprehensive of some things Celtic1 but there is a limit to the comprehensiveness, for instance, Popery is not tolerated, neither is Anabaptism or Lutheranism.

 

As "comprehensive" as the Elizabethan settlement was, it was purely for political-practical reasons. There was a profound uniformity enforced strictly by canons and declarations. Non-conforms were not exactly treated daintily, as they are today.

The works of the Divines, explicating the Articles & Catechism, show us what the Anglicans of those ages really believed. Puritans and Papists are equally condemned by everyone from 1560-1760, until the continental Enlightenment started to work its vile, relativist ways even in good old Britannia... we see the results today.

The classical anglican view of Baptism, drawn from Christ, Scriptures, Fathers, Articles, and Divines (in descending order of importance) is of a sign, a promise, a surety, and yet regeneration: becoming a "member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven". Like it or not, the Catechism was the Church's official "apostolic teaching", if you will. Those who want subjectivism and pluralism need look to the protestants, not to the Holy, Catholic, Reformed Apostolic Church of England.

 

Interesting thoughts Hackney. How would you define Popery, Lutheranism, and Anabaptiam? And what about the is so intolerable? I have my own thoughts about the first and the last, but it appears you've been out voted on Lutheranism, at last in TEC, which is in full communion with ELCA. In fact a Lutheran pastor preaches occasionally at an Episcopal church nearby, ans generally sounds more orthodox than his Episcopalian counterpart. The argument I've ever come across when an Anglican disputed Lutheran doctrine was from Henry VIII, at a time when he was a raging Papist. What is the Anglican critique of Luther?

 

I think by "Lutheran" Hackney probably meant the non-relativist, non-liberal, confessional, Bible-focused Lutherans like the LCMS. The ECLA is a bit of a bastard-child in terms of following Christ in the tradition of Martin Luther.

Let him speak for himself, anyway...

 

And what exactly is TEC? Sounds like peas & carrots to me...

 

I can't defend TEC in good conscience; not anymore. I merely mean that, to classical Anglicanism, it's not that hard to refute the ECLA, and to side with LCMS.

As I said, let's leave it up to Hackney.

 

Fair enough, I'll welcome the idea that there is but one authentic view of Baptism in the church. But what exactly is it? I've read the quotes, and, while they all seem very clear to me, others read them and come away with something different. Is the sacrament of Baptism a visible sign of the Baptism or is it Baptism itself. How can a sign be at the same time the thing it signifies. That seems unreasonable. Moreover, while sacraments are spoken of as signs, one of the quotes spoke of it as an instrument, which gives it a totally different meaning. Would the instrument identified be baptism, or the sa crament.. if the former, I totally agree. If something else, please explain.

 

Lutheran eucharistic theology is not acceptable as per the Articles of Religion.

 

I agree that the Articles of Religion are usually interpreted to exclude the co-substantialism views of Lutherans. However, there are many, many understandings of the Eucharist accepted in the various churches of Anglicanism.

I suppose that we can continue to believe that Anglicanism is defined by our understanding of how those who wrote the Articles understood doctrine. My guess that if we did so, we would find that there are very few Anglicans in the English speaking world. Most Anglicans in the US (AC or not) have never seen the Articles, and certainly have not studied them as the Presbyterians do not much read their own Confession.

 

The PCUSA pays little attention to the Westminster Confession, which of course is why it is in the same perilous situation as TEC. This is NOT true of the PCA whose meticulous attention to the Westminster Confession is the cause of endless debate.

 

The point is that Aaytch won't be happy until he realizes he has never been an Anglican (or an "anglican" in his terminology) and never will be.

Edited.
-Admin

 

The point is that
1. it is dishonest for some churches such as the "Reformed Church of England" to use that terminology while they have no intent to follow one of the Reformed confessions (such as her own). The Reformed view is inherently confessional.
2. it is meaningless to use the term "Anglican" if you can't agree on whether it infers Lutheran, Roman or Reformed sacramental theology. May I remind you that the title of this thread is "What is the Anglican view of Baptism?" There is no such singular view.

 

What you're referring to is a diversity of views among adherents, and that such diversity is present among all religious groups. The presence of such diversity is irrelevant, because the only thing that matters is the doctrinal position of the Church, regardless of whether it is being enforced by the current crop of bishops.

Current Roman bishops don't enforce transubstantiation, but it's still official. Current Anglican bishops don't enforce baptismal regeneration, but it isn't any less the official doctrine of the church.

Just as the Romans need to try stronger and harder to enforce their doctrine, so do we. The official stance of our Church is clear.

 

The word Anglican originates in ecclesia anglicana, a medieval Latin phrase dating to at least 1246 meaning simply "the English Church". It's official doctrine was that of Rome until the Reformation, and then it switched back and forth a few times before becoming "settled" with the 39 Articles, which in a few ways resembles Lutheranism but in most ways follows the view of Bucer, Calvin, Vermigli, Bullinger, etc. This is particularly true of its sacramental theology which, regardless of certain phrases which you presume to teach "baptismal regeneration" was largely Reformed until the Tractarians came along. Churchmen like Cranmer, Jewell, Newton, Whitfield, Ryle, and Packer have all been vehemently opposed to it. Today of course their battle is lost. The members of ecclesia anglicana have no intent to follow in their footsteps, preferring instead to follow a Roman, Lutheran or Orthodox path, all of which hold to a form of baptismal regeneration.

 

What part of

"Baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ",
"a Sign of Regeneration or new Birth",
"they that receive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church",

and

"this Child is by Baptism regenerate"

Don't you understand?

 

Stalwart, it depends on what you mean by "baptismal regeneration". All Anglican divines reject an ex opera operato view of the sacraments, thus "baptismal regeneration" as understood by Romans and Eastern is not permissible in Anglican theology, i.e. there is no moral change in a person during baptism, there is a change of status. Also there was and is a wide range of views on baptism in Anglican history.

 

The specific details are probably outside of the scope of the current question. Suffice it to say that whatever we mean by regeneration, it happens at baptism.

 

Clearly Stalwart thinks that Abraham did not receive mercy until he was circumcised, that Jesus was not set apart until John baptized him, and that the Ethiopian was not saved when he asked to be baptized but rather only when he was baptized. It's a denial of salvation by faith and an establishment of salvation by works.