Thoughts on (infant) baptism from evangelical Anglican perspective

Dear friend, I suggest you'r looking at the Early Reformation, through a 21 Century filter! In Elizabethan times there was only one Church. Elizabeth, who was an Anglican Catholic, decreed that all her,' subjects,' who were Calvinist believers should be in the Church in England. She and her Council imagined that several thousand bishops and priests should be able to teach the Catholic Faith to the younger ,'protestants,', whilst long hard winters would speedily remove the elder ones. They were mistaken, the Calvinists had stronger wills than most Anglicans, who probably only wanted to practice their faith. Neither did she want to follow the policies followed by the continental monarchies, the axe, or the garrotte, certainly she doesn't appear to have the slightest urge, to follow the tactics of the Romanist Emperor and bury her religious opponents alive, if for the only reason that the Gentry and Aristocracy were frightened of having to disgorge the looting and thieving of Church wealth that had illuminated the early Reformation. If you follow further this history of the Church in England you'll find that she survived her reign because the alternative to Anglican Catholic Eliza, was Roman Mary of Scotland , or relatives of the King of Spain. When the fear of Roman successors disappeared the violence of the Calvinists and the weakness of Latitudinarian Anglicans allowed the leadership of the Presbyterians to bring on the vicious wars of religion that caused the Anglican Church in England vanish in a welter of dictatorship, proto fascism, and slaughter where the Anglican Church was disbanded and the Anglican King was ordered to turn the Church in England over to the protestant sects and both King and Archbishop were murdered by vote! The rites and prayer books of the church were banned and the priests were sacked some being killed and others being sent as indented slaves.
No friend, only after the farcial so called Glorious Revolution (1688/9) did ,'Latitudinarianism,' set in full time. Look just where it's gotten us?

Read, Peter Heylin's Ecclesia Restaurata . Amazon @ £9.00.
Bishop Jeremy Collier Vol's 7/8/9 Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain.
Clarendon's Hist, of the Rebellion. Vol.1/2.

 

So, which doctrinal "system(s)" would you banish from the Anglican Communion?

 

Friend,
I wouldn't ban, as such, any doctrinal system from the Anglican Communion but I would insist that Anglican Priests stick to the traditional Rites and teach the ancient system in full accord with the Anglican beliefs of two thousand years.
If people want to be Baptists, or Lutherans or like some of our friends, Roman's , who am I to stop them, or interfere in their worship?
But on the other hand why should people want to stop, or otherwise interfere in the teaching I have been used to for some 82 yrs? Teaching that is in accord with the Anglican Rule of Faith!!

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

highchurchman seems to be far kinder and more tolerant than I! If only we really did insist on keeping within the Anglican Rule.

 

I don't believe that, but I don't want to argue about it.

 

Badges? I hadn't realized. That's awesome!

 

Speaking of the formularies, I'm sure everyone is familiar with Toon's little volume? If not do take a look:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0907839924/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/180-5963527-6912615

It's a good introduction. One of the books I read a few years ago that made my then Reformed self pause and reconsider a few things.

 

Good point, Phoenix. Perhaps the better way to consider whether the video represents the Anglican perspective is the first define what that position is.

The Articles state this about baptism:

The Prayerbook state this:

Further, in the Baptismal office, the liturgy reminds us of Christ's words to Nicodemus as recorded in the Gospel in stating that "None can enter into the Kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost". It goes on to state what happens in holy baptism to those who rightly receive it. They are as follows:

• The baptized member is "received into Christ’s holy Church, and be made a living member of the same"; and
• The baptized member "receive remission of sin, by spiritual regeneration"; and
  [*]The baptized member is shown to be"regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church".
  

The Homilies speak thusly:

The Nicene Creed teaches that there is "one Baptism for the remission of sins".

The Scriptures back up all of the above. More pointedly, the scriptures record Our Lord giving us this truth: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)

Moreover, we are commanded by Our Lord in the Gospel according to St. Matthew 28:19 to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

Given the commands of Christ and the effectual nature of Anglican's understanding of the sacrament, I can't see baptism as a secondary issue. Salvation issues cannot be rightly considered secondary imo. Our Lord links it to the Gospel, so should we.

 

Perhaps I'm just thick but I don't understand how one "signs"the profession. Is there something that needs to be clicked? I need some instruction.

 

I have that book by Toon, Anne.

 

Thank you for the link! Is there some way it can be placed somewhere more prominent on the site? Truly, I thought I had read all the important introduction posts.

 

What's whth all the cross-outs?

 

Ah I was wondering if if I've been missing something too. thanks!