What is the Anglican view of Baptism?

Excellent; your post is one of the best I've read in quite a while on the subject!

 

I cherish the BCP. I use it regularly, in private devotions and services of our Communion. I affirm the "via media" comprehensive Anglicanism represented by it. I affirm the 39 Articles. I affirm the Apostles and Nicene Creed. I affirm the liturgy.[/quote]

Anglicanism is based on the the Revelation of Christ, Scripture and the Seven Councils. It is not comprehensive or a via media, a 'middle' way,' neither is it a pic & mix

 

An interesting statement, and I would say that of myself also. As Stott mentioned, would we then be the "invisible church" becoming the "visible church"?
Jeff+

 

Anglicanism is based on the the Revelation of Christ, Scripture and the Seven Councils. It is not comprehensive or a via media, a 'middle' way,' neither is it a pic & mix[/quote]


I am saying that the church which existed in England prior to Henry, and especially Edward, and the Elizabethan Settlement was quite different from the one which came after. Anglicanism after the Settlement was and is definitely comprehensive and a via media; that is undeniable, no matter how much some would like to deny it and wish it wasn't so.

 

You don't explain in what way! We reject papalism and its perversion of authority! We deny Transubstantiation, and hold to the Real presence, our Marian Doctrines are those of the Councils which we held before and after. There was very little change as far as I can see. The problem was, for the Church after Henry , the entire nation was plunged in to poverty and both Edward and Eliza, bled the Church white, though in Eliza's case she used the money to buy the Calvinists and other protestants off. As for being ,'Comprehensive,'? This was no more than a ploy by the state to gain political unity. Rome garrotted its dissidents, in Germany the Emperors buried many alive, in france they were killed en mass , 30,000 in one night whilst the King and his court enjoyed a light supper waiting for news. In England we accepted them in to the Church. The idea was to teach them the faith, with a bit of luck, a long hard winter would see the elderly off and the young would be receptive to the teaching of the Faith once revealed. It was the biggest mistake we made being reasonable. We should have looked closely towards Europe.

 

THE ANGLICAN VIEW OF BAPTISM!

"We agree that Baptism and (The Eucharist,) , are of necessity to salvation for all the faithful ; [Eng. catechism.]

We are first entered into this society of the Church and made member of this which is Christ's Body, by Baptism, in which the baptised person 1, renounces etc, 2. gives himself up to Christ's service 3, Professes his belief in Christ ,promising to hold fast that profession and 4, engages to live in obedience in His laws: upon which God granteth him 1, full remission of his original sin and of all his antecedent actual transgressions, if he hath commited any, cleansing

him from all stain and pollution of them in the Water of Baptism.2, he giveth him a title to the Holy Spirit, as a principle of new life to the Mystical Body of Christ And being thus dead and buried with Christ,Body of Christ derived from Him the Head:3, and by this spirit he is entitled to the Resurrection of his body and 4, to a happy Immortality, if he he continues steadfast in the performance of the conditions undertaken by him. 5. God promises to accept of a sincere though imperfect obedience to His laws, provided it be universal and that he keep free from all heinous sin and still be improving and going onwards to perfection. And lastly,6. if he shall be so unhappy as to pollute his baptism by any such heinous and mortal sin, God is pleased in this covenant to promise , that upon a laborious and thoroughly practical repentance He, will pardon his lapse and receive him again into favour.​

“The symbol by which this covenant is transacted is Water, in which the person is baptised,”( by Trine immersion or infusion; See Rubric ,Bptl Office, Eng Ritual 1548. ) “to signify his being washed from all stain of sin.​

​

Bishop Rattray, Scots Episcopalian , Non Juring Bishop.​

 

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate this thread Layman. After spending 10+ years serving in the fundamental evangelical side (layman and ordained), baptism is yet another point of debate/debase for them. I found it humorous that the Baptists were against the Campbellite Christians, who were against the Pentecostals, who despised the Methodists.........and all openly criticized the Catholic/Anglican Church. I've seen theology that said baptism was performed only to be saved, to receive the Holy Spirit, to speak in tongues (confirmation of), and some that didn't practice it at all! One exceptionally odd fellow (Church of Christ) claimed that if you stood at the side of the baptistery awaiting immersion, if you died and fell forward you would "go to heaven", and if you fell backwards you would "go to hell"

I am so glad to be leaving the cornucopia of misunderstood/misrepresented theology, to return to a simple, biblical understanding of baptism. I recently sat down and read the service for holy baptism in the BCP with my 2 year old Grandaughter in mind. So plain, so simple, but yet so meaningful. Marking her with Christ's own mark, not the mark of a denomination or rogue fundamental church, and holding the adults/family/Parish in her life accountable for instruction, guidance, and love. Amen!

Jeff

 

It's such a beautiful, simple, and apostolic doctrine, prior to any errors and corruptions that later occurred in the history of Christianity. I was heartened when John Stott, a notable low churchman, published an article teaching our baptismal regeneration:

 

I just read the Stott article and must say I quite enjoyed it. I also think it made a great case for baptismal regeneration independent of the sacrament which has been my point all along. We should be baptized, the Gospel commands it. But if for some reason, we are not able to be baptized in water, God's grace may still be sufficient to save one, either for the adult who believes or for the child . We still have grace and faith. And without those things the sacrament is to no avail. The distinction is nuanced. Sacrament's are "oaths" or promises of the things the signify, which must be recieved by faith. The article decribes it thusly:

That is why St. Augustine was able to say, as the article records:

I am very thankful to you Scottish Knight & Stalwart for sharing this. It has really blessed me.

 

The thief on the cross is a prime example of pure saving faith, no works, no baptism, etc, but we must also understand the love and grace of God and not take this as the norm. Jesus did set the example in the Jordan!

Jeff

 

My problem with that example is that it gets at what God can do, which nobody doubts, rather than addressing what He has ordained the Church to do, which can be potentially a whole different thing. We are not to speak in tongues, even though the apostles did; and just because Jesus accepted the thief on the cross, does not mean that we are to say that we are to accept people without baptism.

The teaching of the Bible is clear: he who isn't baptised by water and spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. The normative function of the church (among other things) is to baptise. God's extraordinary miracles do not extend to every person. If those average people are not baptised by the Church, they will not enter the Kingdom. That is the clear teaching of God.

 

I agree.......as I said in the later part of my post.

 

I agree with you both. It is part of our obedience. However, I know more than one person who has lost an unbaptized child, and along with the unthinkable sorrow that comes from that tragedy, do you really think they should be burdened with the thought that their sweet baby is now roasting in hell? I can't in my heart believe that God would do that.

 

That is absolutely false and a false gospel -- it is not what the scriptures teach at all.

 

If that is the case Celtic what do you believe our Lord was teaching in John 3:5 when he said "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."?

 

What it cannot mean is that an outward ritual is necessary to enter the kingdom of God; to maintain this contradicts the rest of scripture and examples therein.

Look at the context of the verses -- and not just verse five.This presents several possibilities: One, a contrast of physical and spiritual birth; two, water referring to the spiritual cleansing that accompanies spiritual rebirth; three, a contrast between John's water baptism and Christ's spiritual baptism.

I don't believe this is referring to Christian baptism at all because at this point in the ministry of Jesus, Christian baptism had not been given or commanded yet.

So, why not just take the verse to mean that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Because, as I said, this would contradict the rest of scripture and specific examples given.

Further, does anyone actually believe that unbaptized babies go to hell? And yet you would be forced to believe that if this verse is interpreted to mean that water baptism is necessary for salvation -- or admit that you are not consistent in what you believe.

 

Actually I did look at the context and I also dug into a number of commentaries on it, and that is pretty much how John was reporting it.

Whether we believe unbaptised babies go to hell is another question... I don't believe they do, but I am a mystic so some of my beliefs are not necessarily in alignment with Church literalists.

 

Honestly, I'm chuckling to myself and shaking my head at the same time, this is the same raging theological debate between the Baptists and the Campbell/Stone Christians. Call me simplistic, but it appears very clear in the BCP that baptism is an outward demonstration of an existing inward faith, not a ritual creating an inward faith. I also see a clear pattern of saving faith in Hebrews 11 which was demonstrated in different methods over the centuries, with Jesus setting the final example in the Jordan. Not one needing cleansing or regeneration, but simply an outward identification with He and His church. As Stott pointed out, that salvific moment can come before, during, or after baptism.

Jeff

 

One interpretation of that verse would paraphrase it to say "To enter the Kingdom of God, you must be born of a woman in water, and born of God in the spirit"

Jeff

 

You are of course correct.

However, I believe the only way the "salvific moment" can come during water baptism is if the person comes to faith at the moment of the application of the water.

Reading some views on here, it seems they have more in common with the Campbellites, Roman Catholics, and Lutherans on the issue.