Is Infant Baptism a required belief/practice?

Whereas the Roman position seems to be Prima Magisterium.

About #2--- you are saying that the canon of the Old Testament was not (and therefore is not) closed??

 

The Bible was assembled by the Holy Ghost, and the Church assembled around the Bible, I think we can agree on that...

 

My view is that it was closed in the Post Apostolic period to ensure that writing of the Christians were not absorbed into Jewish Scripture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

There are a number of Wiki articles on the Canon of Scripture and its development, and if you are interested in the topic, I suggest they are worth the time.

My view on the position of the Latin Church is that its position has developed over time, and certainly from Trent to the call for Vatican II I think you suggestion of probably truer that it is for the Post Vatican II Church, which has accorded Scripture greater prominence that previously.

 

I would imagine something like this:

https://www.anglican.net/works/john...ent-of-catholic-church-kingdoms-of-the-world/

In particular this part:
https://www.anglican.net/works/john...-catholic-church-kingdoms-of-the-world/#p2-14
As there hath been from the beginning one Universal Kingdom throughout all the World, whereof the Son of God was ever the sole (though invisible) Monarch, as we have shewed in the former Chapter: So it is generally agreed upon among all Christians, That from the Creation of Mankind, during the times aforesaid, there hath always been One Universal or Catholick Church: which began in Adam, and afterward (as his Posterity multiplied, both before and after the Flood) was dispersed over the face of the whole Earth; and whereof the Son of God likewise was always the head and sole (though invisible) Monarch. The foundation of which Church was ever one and the same Rock, to wit Christ Jesus, the promised Seed of the Woman, that should break the Serpents head :  and as many Persons, Families, Societies, and Companies, as truly believed in that blessed Seed, without exception of any sort, or distinction of People, were the true Members and parts of the Catholick Church.


And for the particulars, for instance the OT church government being bishops/priests/deacons (namely, לויים כהנים ,נשיאים), I found this to be handy:
https://www.anglican.net/works/lanc...three-epistles-of-peter-moulin-answered-1647/

Everything else like the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving you could probably piece together yourself.

 

I'll leave it to Stalwart or others who claim genuine "Anglican" membership on this website, to answer your question, if they can.

My answer is that the 'quite a thought' can be found in the pages of scripture. Christ is undoubtedly the Lord of both Old and New Covenants. Both are based on faith in HIM and the word describing the church in both Old and New testaments is the same, (ecclesia), meaning assembly.

The Church has been and remains one: the nation of Israel was the Church; the Christian Church, since it also comes under the covenant of grace, is the same Church.

In the New Testament the people of Isreal are called "the church" (Acts 7:38). God separated the Hebrews from all the nations on earth so that they might become His own people and constitute His Kingdom. It is to them that the oracles of God were entrusted. They were Israelites : it is to them that the adoption, the glory, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises belong. (Rom.10:4). One cannot say more than this of the Christian Church.

The Israelites were chosen with a view to forming a Church, that is to say, with a view to their being God's witnesses in the world on behalf of true religion, the promoters of His worship, and the keepers of His commandments. Their religious authorities, their prophets and their priests, were set apart by God and were His ministers. No one could become a member of the nation of Isreal without taking the place of a disciple, without promising obedience to God's law revealed in His Word, and without submitting themselves to the rite of circumcision which was the seal of the covenant.

No authentic definition of the Church can exclude the Church of the people of God in the Old Testament. Semantic researches in connection with the word ecclesia have confirmed the point and have shown that in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (quahal) was translated by (ecclesia).

The Christian Church is not a new Church but identical with that of Isreal. There is but ONE olive tree and it lives on. (Rom.11:16-24)
.

 

I figured when you said 4,000 years you were connecting the Old and New Testament. It is the same Holy Trinity (Elohim) and Lord God (Y’WH, Yehovah) who made Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26-27), who called Abraham and His Son Isaac (Genesis 18:1-12), the Same God who became flesh (John 1:1-17), who died for our sins and rose from the dead (John 19 and John 20), and who is Coming Back to complete Davidic prophecies (Zachariah 14) and rule for a millenium (Revelation 21:1-20) and bring the New Jerusalem, Heaven and Earh to be (Revelation 21:1-4). Amen.

I am glad you made the point that the church is as old ad the Old Testament, for it is in Genesis 3, that the Lord tells our ancestors salvation will come, “And I will cause hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel,” (Genesis 3:15) which is fufilled in the New Test, “And the dragon was angry at the woman and declared war against the rest of her children—all who keep God’s commandments and maintain their testimony for Jesus.” (Revelation 12:14).

 

Indeed, we are children of Abraham:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

We are in the linage of faith:

“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.
10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise.
12And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth.
14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own.
15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,
18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.
23By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.
25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.
26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.
28 By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets,
33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions,
34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.
35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.
36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.
37 They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—
38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised,
40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:6-40)

We are kinsmen and kinswomen to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses, and Peter, Paul, James and John. We are sons of Abraham through faith in Christ. For the patriachs believed in pre-incarnate Christos, while we believe in the Incarnate Christus. Only Jesus saves, Abrhaam and all the saints of the old testament were not saved by the law, but by faith: “nd be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—” (Philippians 3:9), and “So also Abraham "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."
So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”
11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.” (Galatarians 3:6-14)

 

Lest this thread drift too far afield from the subject of baptism, let me return to the issue of whether baptism is required for the new birth to occur and therefore required for one to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit and the promise of eternal life.

I recently read the testimony of a man who'd been involved in witchcraft and other evils, but who was one day convinced by some Christians of his need for salvation through faith in Jesus. He prayed to accept Christ but, he says, at first he felt no different and thought maybe he'd acted foolishly. But as he left the building and reached his car, suddenly he felt an immense weight lift off of him and he knew he was saved. But things would not be quite so simple as that, for after he reached his home and had been there just a few minutes, the man found that "the room turned frosty cold, and my dog went nuts, barking at the door and at various corners inside the house. A picture fell off the wall, and I knew they were not happy. I didn't know anything about God or the Bible or the Messiah. Nothing. But, something deep down prompted me to say, "I plead the blood of Jesus Christ." Immediately, the presence was gone. The room returned to normal temperature. My dog calmed down. That was my first lesson that we do not war against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness in this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Here was a man who'd not yet had a chance to be baptized, but who felt his burden of sin lifted from him and who, when attacked by angry demons, received assistance from the indwelling Holy Spirit in his hour of need.

Of course, that's just an anecdote. But it illustrates a truth that the N.T. reiterates over and over; that truth may be summed up in three words: believe and receive.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them [Israelites] record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

The Israelites had their own ideas about religion. They boxed it up and put a pretty wrapper and a nice bow on it. But the box was not the religion. The outward show (the wrapper) was not the religion. Faith (trust) in God was the true religion. All their little requirements and ceremonial laws and outward rituals drew the minds of the people away from, not toward, the truth. Jesus summed up all the law as "love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Is it possible that the church of the late 100s (and later) placed too much emphasis on a physical ceremony and not enough emphasis on the heartfelt inner change? We know from history that, without a doubt, church thinking slowly and surely migrated further and further from the foundational truths, until by the 15th Century the institutionalized church was way off course. It did not get off course all at once in the later years. No, the error was slow and gradual. It's just like if someone's compass were off by 2 degrees from true north; after traveling a mile or two or three, the error is barely perceptible and the traveler is only a few feet away from the proper route; but after traveling 1500 miles the traveler is way, far out of sight from the true path. In other words, it only took a generation or two for the message of the Gospel to become slightly garbled in transmission. But the written words of testimony from those who lived and walked with Jesus (or who, like Paul, learned from those who did so) remain constant and steady, and these words are our guideposts along with the Holy Spirit who testifies to their truth.

 

I think you should think carefully about what you are suggesting here. As I read it you are levelling a charge of apostasy to the Post-Apostolic Church. Whilst Anglicans do not believe that the Church in infalible we do subscribe to a theory of indefectibility.

God does not need baptism to save a person. That is clear when you look at the narrative of the thief on the cross. What is also clear is that Baptism was the normative practice of the primitive Church, and the use of water (implied in the very term baptism) and the threefold name and ancient and consistent. Baptism is a sacrament of salvation, not a magic potion. In the late Post-Apostolic Church much thought was given to the matter of sin after baptism, and consequently many deferred baptism till the last possible moment, so they didn't have to be good for too long.

XXVII. OF BAPTISM
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.​

Acts 8:34-38
The eunuch asked Philip, ‘About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?’He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.​

 

The eunuch's question is key to the passage. Under the Old Covenant he would not be acceptable in 'the assembly' i.e. the Church, (ecclesia). In the New Covenant there was no such prohibition. Deut.23:1.

The question anyone should ask of themselves is the same as that of the eunuch. Q. "What is to prevent me from being baptized"? A. Nothing whatever, but why do you want to do this"? God and the person themselves are the only Persons who can answer that question.
.

 

Botoph, I am in agreement with Article XXVII and most particularly its statement that baptism is "a sign of profession, and mark of difference... also a sign or Regeneration or New Birth." And a most important sign, not to be neglected or lightly treated or dismissed. So I am in agreement with the teaching of the Anglican Church.

Yet if there are any (members of the Anglican Church or otherwise) who believe that baptism is the means and method (the transport vehicle, if you will) of regeneration or new birth; with such an idea I vehemently disagree.

Some very early members of the church may have gotten careless with their terminology and opened the door to later misunderstanding (so easy for anyone, even me, to do that). And some very early individuals (who contributed documents which have survived to this day) may have stepped off the path somewhat, into error or one sort or another. Yet it is best to conclude that the church as a whole remained on the path for some centuries.

 

I do think botolph has a point in indefectibility. We have to make an emphatic stand against the idea that the Church could be wrong entirely up until me myself and I came along. This is the main reason why when you read the Reformers, they never argued that “it’s me and my bible”. (That’s a recent mostly evangelical stance which was alien to the Reformation.) They always appealed to the constant teaching of antiquity, corrupted by the medieval and recently-emerging Roman Catholic Church.

Now a point about outward ceremonies. That’s obviously far too big than one thread could handle. But I do want to say that rejecting it would force you to completely reject and deny the Great Commission:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

If you parse this passage carefully you will see that physical rituals are required, demanded, in this most majestic command from the Son. The command does not read, simply, “Go And Believe”.

The passage with Philip and the Eunich was also cited. The Apostles were 100% keen on ceremonies as sacred physical signs of inner and spiritual grace.

Plus we have the entire history of the New Testament, the signs and wonders, the physical manifestations. This wasn’t some inward, inner religion — it is always accompanied by storm, lightening, sacred majestic outward rituals, inner conversions. It all goes together. It was just so in the Old Testament as well, 100% visible and physically manifested, and inwardly sealed. This is simply the religion that God revealed to Abraham, way back in the beginning.

 

Points well taken, Stalwart. I was incorrect in my terminology.

 

You make good points Stalwart. The Reformers indeed held to authority of the apostles and even Church fathers. They were not rogue or wanton on discarding rites, they simply removed the ivy of the Medieval Church that had grown over the Gospel and the Scriptures. Ad Fontes (back to the sources) was their battlecry, not “I am infallible and interpret perfectly.”

“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" (Romans 10:14-15)

 

No we can't. The scriptures were 'inspired' by The Holy Ghost and were written, read and used, by 'the church' ecclesia, (OT and NT). Then the church selected which of those 'writings' were 'inspired' and duly incorporated them into the canon,(Greek kanon, meaning measuring reed), then called the writings, 'The Books', (Greek ta biblia, plural). The word scripture comes from the Latin word scriptura: writings.

It was the church that decided what went into the Bible. The church didn't assemble around it. The church threw out what it considered should not be included in The Books. Which was quite a lot of stuff which quite a lot of the church previously had been reading. Some of that stuff carried on being read by some sections of 'the church' but managed to get themselves declared to be no longer 'church', (sections or otherwise), because they carried on reading them when told not to, by The Emperors new 'Church', circa. 365AD, with a capital 'C' and underlined. The moral being, "Don't mess with us cause we have the Emperor on our side now." Thus started the heresy hunts.
.

 

I take the point. Baptism is a sacrament, indeed it is a Dominical Sacrament. That pouring water and saying certain words is a means of salvation is entirely dubious, and the salvation of the thief on the cross shows that. Yet Baptism remains the normative approach whereby we are made fellow members of the body of Christ, and joint heirs of the promises of Christ.

 

to deny that the scriptures have been assembled by the holy ghost, and to ascribe them to human agency, is surely a rejection of Anglicanism, and a heresy of the highest order

As to baptism, I'm sure we can all agree that as a foundational apostolic pillar, holy baptism is the sign of spiritual circumcision, as the Apostles had taught it... And therefore as children may be circumcised so they may be baptized, and born again of water and the holy ghost, because our rebirth is not our own action, but God's sovereign action upon us

 

I know of no doctrine of the Assembly of Holy Scripture - it sounds more like Ikea than Christianity. We deny not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the lives and writings we receive as Holy Writ. We deny not the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the determination of what the Church ultimately takes as the Canon of Holy Scripture. Yet we need to be determined to understand that God holds not the pen, nor the writer captive, and in the writing we learn much of the writer as well as the subjects on which they write. I think we do a great disservice to our understanding of God when we deny the humanity of those who penned the writings.

 

Who do you think wrote the scriptures then? Who held the pen, who made the scroll and put pen to it, who signed the letters that Paul wrote? Where did the Holy Spitit get His ink? Where did St Luke get his assembled material from. How did he choose what to include and what to leave out of his Gospel and Acts of The Apostles? Luke 1:1-4. Why are the synoptic Gospels synoptic?

How dare you accuse me of 'Heresy' when you are guilty of stupidity. The Bible does not contain a single intimation that it was written by or 'gathered together by' The Holy Spirit. If it's not in The Bible we don't have to believe it. Clearly you have not read it all and found that out. The Bible claims only that the writings, (scripture), are INSPIRED, (God Breathed), probably remeniscent to the life imparting act of God in Genesis or Ezekiel. Gen.2:7, Ezek.37:5.They are neither infallible nor inerrant, both those claims are distictly UN Anglican. They are American 18th century new fangled pious puritan protestant innovations.
.

 

Gentlemen, let's remain calm.

Perhaps we can agree that God inspired men to write the Scriptures (not controlling their hands, but speaking to their hearts). Arguments are made by various folks as to how intensely 'guided' they were, such as whether God's inspiration led to the use of specific verbiage and sentence structure. Those who think He did the latter also tend to think that the original writings in the original language were inerrant (I favor this belief). But these things are mostly a matter of personal conviction, I think, and I'm not sure we can get dogmatic about them because one can only arrive at them by assuming that certain verses infer or don't infer something.

One thing we may want to carefully avoid is the "assembly of Scriptures by men" line of thought, because this is the tack the Roman church sails when it claims that it (the RCC) "gave" us the Bible. But I think I understand where the sentiment anglican74 is coming from. And I think I understand where Tiffy is coming from, too. It might be differences in perspective more than anything else.