A question regarding Baptism and the church

My dear Anglican friends I really like both low and high church. Is it possible my brothers and sisters in the Lord that I could be Low Church but still believe baptismal regeneration? I tend to agree with the Calvinist Richard Hooker in many of his beliefs. I say that so that you can understand where I am coming from.

 

Sure. It is one of our doctrines and taught in the Prayerbooks and the famous theologians like Hooker.

 

Thank you Anglican 74.

 

Mind you good friend! I shouldn't describe the good father Hooker, or baptismal regeneration, as Calvinist? He was a Catholic Priest,scholar and confessor!

 

That too is true high churchmen. I suppose he was Reformed Catholic.

 

Hi Joshua,

I think the answer is a little more nuanced than simply yes/no. While Anglicans declare that grace, including the grace of regeneration is imparted through the sacraments, they generally reject the ex opere operato view of baptism which automatically regenerates the baptised by the mere act.

Article 27 states the following: "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 the 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.'

This means that not all who are baptized receive regeneration, only those who rightly receive it are regenerated. Also, we see that baptism is not the source from which our regeneration comes but rather the instrument through which our regeneration is "visibly signed and sealed."

Archbishop Cranmer, in his book "True and Catholic Doctrine..." Says this regarding the sacrament of baptism: "St Augustine showeth the same to be true in the sacraments both of baptism and of the Lord's body, which, he saith, do profit only in them that receive the same worthily....in baptism, those that come feignedly and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with sacramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ".

Cranmer makes this distinction by following the Augustinian understanding of sacraments. He quotes St Augustine from Contra Maximinum saying, " In sacraments is to be considered, not what they be, but what they show; for they be signs of other things, being one thing, and signifying another." For Cranmer, the act of baptism doesn't regenerate, rather it shows regeneration which is given by operation of the Holy Ghost in the sacrament. It makes the invisible visible.

 

Here is a great blog post on the subject by someone far more knowledgeable than I:
http://conciliaranglican.com/2014/04/28/ask-an-anglican-baptismal-regeneration/

 

I would add to what was said above that we can say that if Regeneration does happen in the Christian, it happens at Baptism. Those who will have been saved were truly and ontologically made regenerate at Baptism.

 

Many Anglicans would disagree, and so would I.

 

Interpretations of scripture vary. That's why there are different denominations, and different parties in Anglicanism. You apparently hold the Anglo-Catholic or High Church view on this doctrine, which is fine for you, my friend. However, I do not.

Perhaps you and others have heard of the Gorham case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cornelius_Gorham

http://supremacyandsurvival.blogspot.com/2011/03/gorham-judgment-march-9-1850.html


Wikipedia discussion

 

And I have no problem affirming these -- which I do not find to teach baptismal regeneration, by the way.

 

Interpretations vary, so what, as Anglicans we follow the teachings of the Church in England with its two thousand year scholarship and Tradition! As for Gorham, the man chose his own way, but it was the state that backed him,not scripture or Tradition or the church
As for the ones who left? It was the weaker bretheren, I don't blame them but they chose a corrupt sect rather than Christ 's Body!

 

And those teachings are more varied than any church body in Christendom.

I participate on an Orthodox forum; they claim they are "Christ's Body", the "one true church" and are the only ones with evidence to back up that claim. With the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, High Church Anglicans, and many more making that claim, I wonder who is right, and how one would determine who was right or if any one particular Communion or Body was right.

 

Dear Friend?
You might well believe the Orthodox claim and good luck to you and that Communion! I most certainly believe the Orthodox are a part of Christendom and Christ's Body,whilst their claim to be the only Church i think is wrong.
Your comment that you are on a Orthodox Blog, is quite interesting, in my understanding I find that many , what I think on as Evangelical individuals or even and certainly groups find solace in Orthodoxy. For myself, I have never felt the need to go to either Rome, or Orthodoxy whilst I have the teachings of my own Church! I most certainly think that The Anglican Church is a Communion of Catholics within the Body of Christ and all those groups who hold to the Revelation of Christ once made to the Saints, entered in to Scripture, interpreted by the Seven Ecumenical Councils .Even though the groups are split amongst themselves, are within the Church Catholick.
I have to tell you friend that the Anglicans, as far as I understand have never claimed to be the One , Holy Catholic Church, only a particular communion within the fold. As to who determines membership? Luckily membership is decided by baptism & belief, I imagine the judge being the Holy Ghost!In God, we trust!

 

I in fact can agree with what you have said in your post.

 

Archbishop Beach of the ACNA gave an interesting illustration on the Anglican understanding of baptism on his series, "A Word from the Lord". He said that, in baptism, we are like Noah and his family. We are saved through the water not by the water.

 

My first impression or reaction to that was that I liked it. But the more I think about it, I wonder if it's a distinction without a difference. How do you see it?

 

What is their proof?I'mnot challenging them, just curious!