# Okay, so explain to me the.....



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 20, 2007)

Okay, so I'm just really noticing that anglicans believe that baptism is regenerative in some sense when applied to the elect children of believers.

Any reformed anglicans (or high sacramental reformed) folks around care to give me a basic overview ?

My pastor has went through this for me, but I'd like some more info.

KG


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 20, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Okay, so I'm just really noticing that anglicans believe that baptism is regenerative in some sense when applied to the elect children of believers.
> 
> Any reformed anglicans (or high sacramental reformed) folks around care to give me a basic overview ?
> 
> ...



It's not the teaching of the Reformed Episcopal Church, or of the 39 Articles. Perhaps it's held by the TEC and other "high" Anglicans. But not those on the Reformed side. 

But baptismal regeneration IS also the theology of Rome and Lutheranism. 

In its most basic sense baptismal regeneration teaches precisely that - a sinner is born again through the sacrament of baptism applied to them. Titus 3:5 is a favorite verse of Lutherans. So too is John 3:5. Mark 16:16 is also significant. Other passages as well. One must be able to argue that all pertinent passages are speaking of water baptism. 

The theology holds that the sacrament of baptism is the moment when one is saved, born again; the moment when one becomes a child of God. So, rather than look to a time when a subjective decision was made, one looks instead to the objective fact of baptism for the assurance of their salvation. Instead of relying upon experience, one looks instead to what God has done.

What about baptized unbelievers? Well, Arminian theology lay behind much of the thinking here. A child that is baptized is truly saved. However, they can lose their salvation later on. As unbelievers, they would not be concerned with their baptism. So only believers will constantly look back to their baptism for assurance and comfort. 

Think of Luther fighting with the devil in the Wartburg Castle. When the temptation to think of himself as nothing but a sinner would enter into his mind and begin to overwhelm him, Luther would respond by telling himself, "But I have been baptized!" 

That's a thumbnail sketch of baptismal regeneration. It's no longer my theology, but that's the gist of it.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Mar 20, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Okay, so I'm just really noticing that anglicans believe that baptism is regenerative in some sense when applied to the elect children of believers.
> 
> Any reformed anglicans (or high sacramental reformed) folks around care to give me a basic overview ?
> 
> ...


Well, I don't, and would argue with my minister if he did (I'm allowed to, he's family  ).


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 20, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Okay, so I'm just really noticing that anglicans believe that baptism is regenerative in some sense when applied to the elect children of believers



Y'know ... I'm not sure I even answered your question with my previous post. You're asking about the idea that baptism is regenerative for "elect" children. 

Yes, there are some who believe this. But just take what I said earlier about baptismal regeneration and apply it to the concept of the elect. In other words,, only the elect will be regenerative. Baptism is then only effective for the elect, while meaningless for the reprobate.


----------



## jtbusfield (Mar 22, 2007)

*Baptismal Regeneration and the REC*

Kevin,

You mentioned in your post:

"It's not the teaching of the Reformed Episcopal Church, or of the 39 Articles. Perhaps it's held by the TEC and other "high" Anglicans. But not those on the Reformed side."

Unfortunately this is no longer true. It is true that denial of baptismal regeneration was a basic tenet of the founders of the REC. However, the REC in its return to Anglo-Catholicism has also returned to this anti-Protestant doctrine. They have re-inserted the phrase "This child is now regenerate" in the Infant Baptism service and have issue a joint statement with the openly Anglo-Catholic APA which says, in part:

_It is also affirmed that the sacrament of Baptism effects a new birth into the life of Christ and his Body the Church, and is thus rightly called "regeneration." According to our Lord’s command and institution, Baptism is the necessary sacrament of Christian discipleship, and thus ordinarily necessary for salvation. The grace conferred in Baptism, when received rightly, includes the remission of both original sin and all personal sins (when applicable) through one’s union with Christ in the Paschal mystery, the adoptive sonship of the Father and membership in Christ and his Body. Through Baptism, a person is incorporated into the Church and becomes the temple of the Holy Spirit. Baptism configures a person to Christ and makes him a sharer in his priesthood, consecrating the baptized person for Christian service and worship. Hence, the character of Baptism is rightly said to be indelible and the Sacrament not repeatable._ (http://anglicanprovince.org/pressrel702.html)

The REC cannot really be thought of as Reformed any longer. It has abandoned its historical, biblical roots to join in with any "Anglican" group that opposes the homosexual bishop, regardless of other theological perversions (e.g. women in the "priesthood", charismatics, etc.).


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 22, 2007)

jtbusfield said:


> Kevin,
> 
> You mentioned in your post:
> 
> ...



Uh-oh. I wasn't aware of that. I knew the REC had a loose union with the APA, but wasn't aware of this point. 

I'll be meeting again with a bishop of the REC and asking him about this:
(1) Is it a teaching of the REC?
(2) Do pastors/bishops of the REC have to sign on to this? 

I'm also going to check it out on the REC website.

Thanks for the info. I had no idea.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 22, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> So, rather than look to a time when a subjective decision was made, one looks instead to the objective fact of baptism for the assurance of their salvation. Instead of relying upon experience, one looks instead to what God has done.



I've heard Danny Hyde (Dutch Reformed minister, also a member of the PB) speak of baptism this way, as well. The idea of looking to the objective fact of baptism (since that is technically when one became part of the visisble church and focuses more on God's work, not our feelings) instead of subjective experience isn't only something that BR folk teach. The _Strasbourg Catechism_ had a question asking (this is a paraphrase) "How do you know you are a Christian?" and the answer was "Because I have been baptized."


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 22, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I've heard Danny Hyde (Dutch Reformed minister, also a member of the PB) speak of baptism this way, as well. The idea of looking to the objective fact of baptism (since that is technically when one became part of the visisble church and focuses more on God's work, not our feelings) instead of subjective experience isn't only something that BR folk teach. The _Strasbourg Catechism_ had a question asking (this is a paraphrase) "How do you know you are a Christian?" and the answer was "Because I have been baptized."



It's good to point out that baptism can indeed be tied with assurance in a sense; but it's very important to qualify that sense, and know what it does and doesn't assure us of, and how it does so. Otherwise, it's very easy to end up with an exaggerated concept of the objectivity of salvation (e.g., Federal Vision).

There was some good clarification on this issue in this thread.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 22, 2007)

I don't want to speak for DH, but perhaps he wouldn't mind if I pointed out that reflecting _by faith_ on baptism and what it means _makes_ the sacrament effectual. In other words, what's being said by pastor Hyde and other Reformed minsters holding to the tradition of infant baptism (myself included) is *not* that the efficacy is found _in the act of sacrament_ (no more than the Lord's Supper confers grace ex operato); but rather is found _in the act of believing in *the objective facts* that the sacrament teaches._

This is vital distinction, and one that the earliest Reformers came to understand. This is Calvin's view. And the baptismal reflection is not something to be done apart from a wholistic use of the means of grace, and a sum-total reflection on the grace of God in salvation. True, the sacraments are two objective and powerful symbols. God gave them (and only them, so their effect is enhanced by their uniqueness) for this purpose. But in the end, they are not bare and naked signs alone. But they themselves are great, glowing pointers--like neon lights--that urge us in to faith in the fullness of revelation.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 22, 2007)

Thanks for those clarifications, Bruce and Chris. I definitely didn't mean to imply in any way that Rev. Hyde teaches baptismal regeneration. That's why I tried to block out my quote which I claimed could also be attributed to him very carefully. I definitely never got that idea from the lecture of his but I do know that the FV guys like to use this kind of argumentation to support their views.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 22, 2007)

Right, and the difference in the FV teaching on the subject is the "objectivity of the covenant" idea. I.e., their teaching is vastly closer to the Lutheran position than the confessional and historic Reformed doctrine. For they teach that in the sacrament of baptism, the person "becomes" a Christian; they are objectively "in" the covenant with God--the "head-for-head" view, bluring or completely erasing the difference between the substance of the covenant and the adminstration of it; their baptism "accomplished something" unto them and entirely beside them that is "conditionally salvific".

The historic Reformed would never say such a thing. Only the elect see any benefit, and that only with saving faith. The apostate never touched the substance, he falls away from the adminstration or the "accidents" of the covenant, which serves to damn him the worse than had he never been a hypocrite. Just think about the wedding guest in Jesus' parable who had no wedding garment.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 23, 2007)

Thanks all. 

Bruce, post more. I'm learning.  

Let me see if I understand this as well:

Baptism is sacramental in that it mystically unites us across time to Christ and His sacrifice - hence, when we were baptized, we were *in some way* buried with Christ and when Christ arose from the grave, so too our rising from the water to newness of life became real and oh no I've lost my thought.  

But something's 'happening' in the water, right ?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 23, 2007)

Here is a way to understand it.

First, don't primarily think of it as a spirit/matter thing. Rome destroys the material thing fully and replaces it with the spiritual. At the other end, Zwingli concluded that the spiritual reality can never be conveyed by a material thing. Thus, baptism is seen only as a token of the believer's promise to be a faithful disciple.

Think, rather, in terms of what baptism represents in terms of _covenant_. The water in baptism is joined to the Word by the Spirit and is connected to the heavenly reality they signify and seal.

Grace is not some sort of substance but something personal - God's own attitude and action that He gives to those who don't deserve it.

We are said to die and rise with Christ in our baptism How can that be? He cannot be forever dying. In baptism it's not as if Christ's death is re-done but, rather, the Spirit brings us to the death of Christ:

Ridderbos writes:


> Baptism is also the means by which communion with the death and burial of Christ comes into being (_dia tou baptismatos_; Rom 6:4), the place wher this union is effected (_en to baptistmato_; Col. 2:12), the means by which Christ cleanses his church (_katharisas to loutro_, Eph. 5:26), and God has saved it )_esosen hemas dia loutrou_; Titus 3:5), so that baptism itself can be called the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Spirt (Titus 3:5). All these formulations speak clearly of the significance of baptism in mediating redemption; they speak of what happens in and by baptism and not merely what happens before baptism and of which baptism would only be a confirmation.



Now, he's not saying that baptism confers the thing signified _without faith_ (by the working of the works) but _faith doesn't make baptism effective_. It is _God who makes baptism effective._


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 23, 2007)

Here's the WCF on the Sacraments. This helps to understand Sacramental connection:


> Chapter XXVII
> Of the Sacraments
> 
> I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,1immediately instituted by God,2 to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:3 as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;4 and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.5
> ...



You can find the Scripture references by visiting this link:
http://www.temeculaopc.org/wcf/wcf27.htm


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 23, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The historic Reformed would never say such a thing. Only the elect see any benefit, and that only with saving faith. The apostate never touched the substance, he falls away from the adminstration or the "accidents" of the covenant, which serves to damn him the worse than had he never been a hypocrite. Just think about the wedding guest in Jesus' parable who had no wedding garment.



Now THAT is a good way to put it. The apostate (reprobate) receives nothing more than the external rite. The water is poured, the words are said ... but that's it. It never goes beyond these "accidens" (a good Aristotelian way of putting things). 

For the unbeliever to base his security only upon these accidens, sans faith, increases his damnation. He views the sacrament not through the cross of Christ, but as though magic. We can think not only of the wedding guest without the garment, but also of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 24, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> It's not the teaching of the Reformed Episcopal Church, or of the 39 Articles. Perhaps it's held by the TEC and other "high" Anglicans. But not those on the Reformed side.
> 
> But baptismal regeneration IS also the theology of Rome and Lutheranism.
> 
> ...



I would like to add that Lutherans believe that the word of God is combined with water to make baptism. Lutherans believe that the regenerating power of baptism is found in the word of God, not in the water itself. Lutherans believe that when an infant is baptized, God creates faith in the heart of that infant. Hence, they believe that baptized infants have faith in Christ.


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 24, 2007)

cih1355 said:


> I would like to add that Lutherans believe that the word of God is combined with water to make baptism. Lutherans believe that the regenerating power of baptism is found in the word of God, not in the water itself. Lutherans believe that when an infant is baptized, God creates faith in the heart of that infant. Hence, they believe that baptized infants have faith in Christ.



That's a good point. The water itself is just water. Only when tied to the Word of God can it be considered baptism. 

When I was Roman I once baptized a baby at the parents home, only to have them ask me what to do with the water now that the sacrament was accomplished. I'd never thought about that before, so I wasn't sure. In the end I told them to simply throw it outside, hoping I wasn't offending God. 

It's the fact that Lutherans view baptism as regenerative that separates them from the Reformed.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 24, 2007)

> Grace is not some sort of substance but something personal - God's own attitude and action that He gives to those who don't deserve it.



That is a crucial thing to understand. 

And another thing we have a big problem with is understanding the mystery of God’s Word “going out” and doing. When we speak the best we can do is describe a thing or shout an imperative to something that already IS. When God speaks His Word calls into being something that NEVER was. When the Gospel calls out it calls INTO being. We, being created who cannot create ex nihilo with a Word from our voice have absolutely no category for this. I cannot go shout to the dead “arise” and expect them to rise. Yet, God commands this very thing as in Lazarus. He also commands it of His servants, in a sense using them as instruments to convey His voice. We become a “medium” used. We example in Ez. 37 when God commanded to say to the valley of bones arise and flesh comes upon them to arise and live. Of course there is the most obvious in Genesis 1.

We kind of get a “grasp” of this when we hear the Gospel afresh “for us” in particular. You are stricken by the Law afresh, which is a killing Word, then suddenly a fresh turn of the Gospel is given TO YOU specifically. Suddenly your faith is strengthened and you feel, if we can use that term here, eternal life arise in your soul. It’s no small thing that God’s Gospel is on me in baptism, it does indeed feed faith and strengthen it because in that case it is Good News that is delivered TO me.

As Calvin said God tells us about the Gospel in His Word, THEN DELIVERS it TO US in the sacrament. The ever crucial TO ME, TO YOU, TO the man in particular delivers the Gospel that makes it Gospel. If Joe Blow wins a billion dollars that’s fine and dandy but what is that to me. But if I get a knock on the door and the authorizing authority of a wealthy group hands me a check authorized by the authorities name paying TO ME a billion dollars, now that is suddenly ‘good news’ (or earthly gospel if you will) TO ME. The sacraments are not just naked signs.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## jon_b (Mar 25, 2007)

For more information on baptismal regeneration you could read The Second Adam and the New Birth by MF Sadler.


----------

