I am confused by this article. 1. It does not explicitly say we are regenerated by baptism, or that baptism effects regeneration, but that it is a sign of regeneration. Do the words imply a previous regeneration? 2. It does not say we are given faith by baptism or that faith is created in us by baptism, but that faith is confirmed by baptism. These words imply a previous faith. 3. How do they conclude that young children are regenerated in baptism, when they just said things that preclude the possibility? Any resources on Anglican 'regeneration' theology?
It's a sign of regeneration because the sacraments do not work ex opere operato, they must be received rightly. For baptism to be received rightly it must be received in faith.
But if the Sacraments do not effect change simply "by the work worked", how can the Church allow infant baptism? If the sacrament must be received in faith, babies cannot be baptised, period. Are they not regenerate?
Faith doesn't require understanding. Faith is a gift of God. The idea of faith as intellectual assent seems to be a very recent, North American one.
Can babies/infants have faith? Whether they do is a different question - but can they even have it? Faith is impossible without some sort of assent, even if it's spiritual assent to believe in God. Faith is firstly a gift, but it must be received too, right? A baby can receive nothing but his mother's milk, because he lacks understanding and cognition.
Question. Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them? Answer. Because they promise them both by their Sureties: which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.
So, you must reverse your statement from before, that there is no 'ex opere operato'! Either there is regeneration or there is not; Baptism doesn't regenerate babies on condition of future mental maturity, does it? If it does, it works ex opere operato. Regeneration based on an outward act without inward heart-felt faith must work ex opere operato. There's no way around it. A promise by your Godparents to "have faith for you" is the faith of someone else, not your own faith. Everyone who came to John the Baptist, that we are aware of, came of his own volition; then again, "all Israel" went down to him, which must have included some babies? Maybe the verb "went" to the Baptist implies that only those able to make the choice went to be baptised. What about Jeremiah?
Adam, this is a literal thread about a theological question. Please be specific in your answer. EDIT: I suppose if you mean the Baptist's "leap" in his mother's womb refers to his faith, then this will quickly degenerate into a conversation about what faith is, rather than what regeneration is.
I think Adam is referring in a cheeky way to passages like this, in Jer. 4ff: That seems to be an instance of Jeremiah being called (elected) unto God, not faith per se.
Regeneration is conferred by the faith of the parents until the child is old enough to claim that on their own.
Is there a biblical reason for believing this? How can X have faith for Y? Faith is intimate relationship with God (among many other things). How do you initiate a relationship with a person you don't even know exists, and who you cannot communicate with due to mental immaturity? This question likewise has serious repercussions for the mentally retarded.
I only ask because Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by grace through faith. Romans 10:17 informs us that faith comes (not from Baptism) but from hearing, and from hearing the word of God/Christ. There is nothing there about receiving faith from baptism, or a pledge of faith by those who profess your baptismal faith in your name. Paul said somewhere that one can only be a Jew inwardly, and he who is a Jew outwardly isn't a true Jew at all. Since he was using this example to admonish Christians, can't we assume that this applies to baptism? You may be baptised outwardly and perform the rituals, but is there a way to have only the outward form of baptism, without God actually doing it Himself? Of course, we know the Jailer in Acts was informed that he should be baptised along with his whole household. This mirrors Abraham having to circumcise all the men of his household. I am quite in support of the warm-hearted idea of grafting even infants to Christ; there is just a reason lacking. As far as I know, the Methodists were the first to propound this.
Consular, You may find this article by J I Packer to be helpul in understanding why infants should be baptised from a reformed anglican perspective: http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_069_2_Packer.pdf Excerpt: It is now clear also what conception should be formed of the efficacy and use of baptism. Baptism is the word of the covenant made visible and seeking admission to the mind through eye-gate, and it is a means of grace, as is the word preached and heard, because it is a means to faith. God designed and uses it to confirm faith in those who have it and to awaken faith in those baptized as infants (cf. Art. XXV). In the latter case, of course, the intended effect is conditional upon the meaning of the sacrament being explained to the child. “Faith cometh by hearing”; and a sacrament that is never explained is of necessity inefficacious. Rightly understood, however, baptism has a lifelong efficacy and use, as an assurance and an incentive. “As often as we fall,” wrote Calvin, “we should recall our baptism, and thereby fortify our mind, so that it may be sure and certain of the remission of our sins” ( Inst. IV. xv.)