Tertullian was right about some things and wrong (sometimes very wrong) about some others. Not sure he's the best one to quote. Just saying. Mat_20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. There's three of the 82 in a single sentence, but they had nothing to do with water baptism. No one here is saying that water baptism is insignificant.
The point I was making is that there is a weight of Biblical material that suggests that the Apostolic Church took Baptism very seriously, the early fathers also took Baptism seriously, and the conciliar Church took it seriously enough to include it in the Nicene Creed. Baptism is one of the Dominical Sacraments.
Okay, that's just proof texting though. What you're omitting to mention is that you expect baptism to produce a holy life, to have potentially charismatic elements, to be a spiritual experience. And most importantly of all, you expect it to be something you do, as if you're choosing to save yourself. All of these are simply incorrect, especially the last one, which is pelagianism. You don't choose to save yourself or to be baptised. You are given the gift of baptism, and the most you can do is stand aside, passively, in awe, about this miracle of rebirth that is given to you. So in short, you're assuming and implying a lot more in 'baptism' than merely the words you had written there.
If you're going to put words in my mouth and make incorrect assumptions concerning what I "expect" baptism to be or do, I see no point in continuing with this. You all have fun with it.
For Jellies, the OP: here is a post I made on the subject of baptism (including infant baptism) in 2019. You may wish to peruse the entire thread. https://forums.anglican.net/threads...quired-belief-practice.2263/page-3#post-32482
Ok then, sorry. So then help me see your perspective: do you expect signs of sanctification after baptism? What does baptism “do”, in terms of visible tangible things that you can measure and see in someone who’s been baptized?
I am glad you pointed this out. It does indeed seem to rule out (for Anglicans) the Reformed view that baptism and regeneration are not necessarily simultaneous events.
Only if you see these words as effectual when pronounced moment, and not as a declaration of the official visible ingrafting of the child into the Covenant community of believers. That said, given that the Reformed view of spiritual regeneration is that it precedes faith, I see nothing wrong with the declaration above, especially when the definition of regeneration historically has undergone a range of invisible and visible boundaries.
You mean, only if I interpret it according to its plain meaning… Regeneration and baptism appear to occur at one and the same moment, according to the language of the 1662 rite. I am glad Stalwart pointed this out. It illustrates one way in which the Church of England deviated from the continental Reformed in the 17th century, after finding much common ground in the 16th. It’s helpful to the discussion.
Clarification: my use of the word “deviated” above was not meant to imply that the Anglican view is wrong, or that the continental Reformed view came first and that the Church of England departed from it. I merely meant that the two communions seem to go in different directions in the 17th century after displaying much common ground in the 16th.
I don’t know, you find the same language in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer: Then the Priest shal take the childe in his handes, and aske the name: and naming the chyld, shal dippe it in the water, so it be discretely and warely done, sayinge. ¶ N. I Baptyse thee in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. Amen. ¶ And yf the child be weke, it shall suffyce to power water upon it sayinge the foresayde wordes. N. I Baptyse thee in the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. Amen. Then the Priest shall make a crosse upon the chyld's forehead, sayinge. WE receyve this child into the congregacion of Christes flocke, and doe signe him with the signe of the crosse, in token that hereafter he shal not be ashamed to confesse the fayth of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner agaynst synne, the world, and the devyll, and to continue Christ's faythfull souldiour and servaunt unto his lyves end. Amen. Then shall the Priest saye. SEEYNG nowe, derely beloved brethren, that these chyldren be regenerate and grafted into the bodye of Christes congregacion: lette us geve thankes unto God for these benefites, and with one accorde make our praiers unto almighty god, that they may leade the rest of theyr lyfe according to this beginninge.
Good point! I am admittedly not as familiar with the 1552 as the 1662. Thank you for providing the full quotation. That definitely helps.
The meaning of the word "regenerate" was different back then. https://forums.anglican.net/threads...quired-belief-practice.2263/page-4#post-32547
And that’s basically what I’m saying. Today’s theologians impute a whole host of meanings into the word “regenerate” from the influence of 19th century Revivalism, and other recent movements, that aren’t grounded in fact.
And what I'm trying to say is, it's not appropriate to link regeneration in its current meaning and word usage to baptism. In other words, being baptized is not something that imparts the new birth.
Somehow I am left wondering what Baptism might mean to you. I have suggested that it is a sign (sacrament or symbol) of our new birth (regeneration) in Christ. Like all sacraments. that is not to suggest or expect that there is some mechanical result apart from faith. The question that gets asked in the case of infant baptism is if that is the faith of the child yet to be developed, the faith of the parents and godparents, or the faith of the community of faith, who by the baptism are drawn into a relationship with the child as fellow members of the Church and inheritors of the promises of God. I worry that by trying to disengage baptism from regeneration we might be falling for a modern error.
I have maintained all along that baptism is indeed a sign of the new birth that has taken place in a person's life. And I'm glad you feel, as I do, that baptism is not a mechanism for conveying the new birth apart from faith. I also believe that baptism is expected of us, although I don't believe that a failure to be baptized would necessarily keep one from entering God's Kingdom at death. The faith issue in infant baptism is indeed the 'elephant in the room' and I think @Jellies was largely focused on that question (haven't seen her lately; I hope she wasn't the one who got into a tiff with Tiffy).
It is my understanding (although it's been quite some time ago that I read up on it, so don't ask me to quote sources) that 400-500 years ago "regenerate" meant 'birth' or 'entry' or 'an introduction' into the visible Church. Whereas now the word 'regenerate' is used to mean 'the new birth,' a spiritual transformation received through faith, which is an entry into the invisible Church.