# Anglicanism and Calvinism



## rembrandt (Jun 6, 2004)

Are there any present day Anglican churches that subscribe to the five points of Calvinism? Predestination is in their 39 articles, but that doesn't tell me much. I know there are &quot;Reformed Anglican&quot; churches. But I don't really understand their theology other than that they are &quot;low-church&quot; compared to the Anglo-Catholics.

Help??

Paul


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 6, 2004)

There ia a Reformed Anglican denomination but it is rather small. There are also reformed Anglicans like JI Packer.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jun 6, 2004)

There is a reformed Anglican church here in Fort Worth that holds strongly to the Thirty-nine articles. They were some of the staunchest critics of the recent ordination of that gay bishop in Mass. I can't remember his name off the top of my head. They opposed it rather vehemently.


----------



## Craig (Jun 6, 2004)

HERE is a link to an evangelical Anglican denom with parishes in Florida...appears to be Reformed.

HERE is a reformed anglican website...right now you can't search for their churches...not sure why, but I'm sure they'll fix that soon.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Craig]


----------



## duke (Jun 7, 2004)

The Sydney Anglican churches would be Reformed. They are typically called the &quot;Puritans from down under&quot;, &quot;fundamentalists who take their Bible literally&quot; etc. You can find a bit more about them at http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/


----------



## Scott (Jun 7, 2004)

Sean: I thin the church in FW you are thinking of is St. Andrews. Also, Bishop Iker is of FW and is very conservative. He is one of the leaders of the movement to have a doctrinally conservative network within the ECUSA.

Rembrandt: I think you will find a mixture of Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the conservative wing of the Anglican church (outside the conservative wing, you will find many things, including rank heresy).


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 7, 2004)

Any [i:ec2dd97b31]five point[/i:ec2dd97b31] Calvinists?

Who are some people known within the &quot;Reformed&quot; community who go to Anglican churches? I saw J.I. Packer named above, can you think of any others? Is N.T. Wright (Anglican bishop) the same guy that is popular among &quot;Reformed?&quot;

Paul

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 7, 2004)

Alister McGrath


----------



## yeutter (Jun 7, 2004)

The Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church is thoroughly Reformed. Its Web site is:

http://www.reformer.org

Their are individual parishes within several Anglican denominations that are thoroughly committed to the 39 Articles.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 7, 2004)

*Just another reason to wonder what they see in him???*

NT Wright is arminian, if he is definable at all. That comes out pretty clear (to me) in his [i:728593d62d]What St. Paul Really Said.[/i:728593d62d]


----------



## Timothy William (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:81c4ff81e0][i:81c4ff81e0]Originally posted by duke[/i:81c4ff81e0]
The Sydney Anglican churches would be Reformed. They are typically called the &quot;Puritans from down under&quot;, &quot;fundamentalists who take their Bible literally&quot; etc. You can find a bit more about them at http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/ [/quote:81c4ff81e0] 

I wouldn't say that many of the Sydney Anglicans would be five point Calvinists. There are certainly are large number of them who believe in total depravity and have a reformed understanding of predestination but I doubt it goes much further than that except for a small minority. I personally have much to be thankful for to the Sydnay Anglicans, they were, indirectly, my main spiritual influence for the first few years of my christian life, but they do have their weaknesses.


----------



## yeutter (Jun 7, 2004)

Bruce, I also fail to understand the attraction to Bishop N. T. Wright holds for some Presbyterian/Reformed types.


----------



## Ranger (Jun 7, 2004)

I know some guys on staff at Christ Church Episcopal in Plano. They are the largest Episcopal church in America, and of the ones I know one is Arminian in reality (although he claims otherwise), but the rest are Reformed.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 7, 2004)

Thomas, did you ever get the U2U I sent you?


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 7, 2004)

Do Anglicans of the conservative wing believe in baptismal regeneration?


----------



## yeutter (Jun 7, 2004)

Some conservative high Church Anglicans believe in Baptismal Regeneration much like the Lutherans do. Some believe in presumptive regeneration..


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

Is Bishop J.C. Ryle the same J.C. Ryle that Reformed folks know?


----------



## Scott (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:d31aa7390c]
Some conservative high Church Anglicans believe in Baptismal Regeneration much like the Lutherans do. Some believe in presumptive regeneration.. 
[/quote:d31aa7390c]

They typically don't use the word &quot;regeneration&quot; in the same way Reformed do, though, do they? The word has become something of a term of art in Reformed circles, although it has a variety of meanings in other theological schools of thought.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:14e551c783][i:14e551c783]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:14e551c783]
Bruce, I also fail to understand the attraction to Bishop N. T. Wright holds for some Presbyterian/Reformed types. [/quote:14e551c783]

The Presbyterian's I know that like Wright either like the novelty that Wright brings to the table (everyone wants to &quot;cutting edge&quot or they are fairly new to the Reformed faith and don't completely understand what Wright is talking about. Folks who are new to the Reformed faith need to be very careful when reading anything from Wright. In fact they should stay away from him completely.


----------



## Timothy William (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:044cf1a87d][i:044cf1a87d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:044cf1a87d]
Is Bishop J.C. Ryle the same J.C. Ryle that Reformed folks know? [/quote:044cf1a87d]

Yes, he was the first Church of England Bishop of Liverpool. He denied (or at least didn't affirm) limited atonement, was a sort of 4 point Calvinist.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:4f56a9502a][i:4f56a9502a]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:4f56a9502a]
Some conservative high Church Anglicans believe in Baptismal Regeneration much like the Lutherans do. Some believe in presumptive regeneration.. [/quote:4f56a9502a]

How can someone's faith be in Christ alone for their salvation if he or she believes that baptism regenerates people?


----------



## Scott (Jun 10, 2004)

Curt:

In the same way that one could believe that the preaching of the Word regenerates people. Anglicans would affirm that the work of baptism is attributable completely to the Holy Spirit, who is present in baptism. The Spirit works to instill, increase, and stregthen faith through baptism. It is this faith that saves and is the alone instrument of salvation. Baptism is not an instrument of salvation.

Sola Fide does not mean that God does not use means to implant, stregthen and increase faith. God uses the Word, prayer, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. So, faith alone does not mean faith apart from the Word, faith apart from prayer, faith apart from baptism, etc.

Scott


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:b924791cdd]How can someone's faith be in Christ alone for their salvation if he or she believes that baptism regenerates people?[/quote:b924791cdd]

Read this:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/con...he_reformed_tradition_past_present_future.htm


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:09ff22d462][i:09ff22d462]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:09ff22d462]
[quote:09ff22d462]How can someone's faith be in Christ alone for their salvation if he or she believes that baptism regenerates people?[/quote:09ff22d462]

Read this:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/con...he_reformed_tradition_past_present_future.htm [/quote:09ff22d462]

Fortunately Mr. Lusk does not set doctrine for the Church. The Church does. The fact that he can pick and chose quotes from Calvin and some Puritans bolstering his position regarding baptismal regeneration then blame &quot;Reformed Scholasticism&quot; for abandoning the cause is ridiculous. I don't speak for the Anglican Church but the Westminster Standards do not support baptismal regeneration in any form by the application of water. Under Mr. Lusk's scenario, baptism no longer is a sign of an inward grace, but the initiator of that inward grace.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

I think he is a Presbyterian actually. I see your concerns. Do you think we can suppose that baptismal regeneration was historically regarded as heresy?


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:5d05119632][i:5d05119632]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:5d05119632]
I think he is a Presbyterian actually. I see your concerns. Do you think we can suppose that baptismal regeneration was historically regarded as heresy? [/quote:5d05119632]

Actually Lusk is one of the Pastors at Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church and is one of the proponents of the Federal Vision. The Sr Pastor at AAPC also advocates Baptismal Regeneration. 

Yes, Baptismal Regeneration is heresy.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:0de1a64b4e]Yes, Baptismal Regeneration is heresy.[/quote:0de1a64b4e]

Historically?


----------



## Scott (Jun 10, 2004)

I don't know what Rusk teaches, but this is a helpful quote from Calvin, which would refute a view that children are not Christians until baptism:

[quote:c7fd6d5179]
&quot;Paul teaches that the children of believers are born holy (First Corinthians 7:14).... They do not become the sons of God through baptism. But because in virtue of the promise they are heirs of adoption, therefore the Church admits them to baptism.... As in Abraham the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision -- so in the children of the faithful in the present day, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism.&quot;
[/quote:c7fd6d5179]

I think this would be contra a Lutheran or Augustinian position. 

BTW, I am not sure what Wayne means by baptismal regeneration (I think there are many meanings to this term), but the larger problems in the reformed churches I have been a part of is the lack of understanding that the sacraments are effectual to salvation and are actual means of grace by which the Holy Spirit stregthens and increases our faith (in a supernatural way, not is a mere memorialistic or didactic way). 

Scott


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:858e5805fa][i:858e5805fa]Originally posted by Scott[/i:858e5805fa]
I don't know what Rusk teaches, but this is a helpful quote from Calvin, which would refute a view that children are not Christians until baptism:

[quote:858e5805fa]
&quot;Paul teaches that the children of believers are born holy (First Corinthians 7:14).... They do not become the sons of God through baptism. But because in virtue of the promise they are heirs of adoption, therefore the Church admits them to baptism.... As in Abraham the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision -- so in the children of the faithful in the present day, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism.&quot;
[/quote:858e5805fa]

I think this would be contra a Lutheran or Augustinian position. 

BTW, I am not sure what Wayne means by baptismal regeneration (I think there are many meanings to this term), but the larger problems in the reformed churches I have been a part of is the lack of understanding that the sacraments are effectual to salvation and are actual means of grace by which the Holy Spirit stregthens and increases our faith (in a supernatural way, not is a mere memorialistic or didactic way). 

Scott [/quote:858e5805fa]

Scott,

What I mean by Baptismal Regeneration is what Lusk is saying. Whether you take the word Regeneration in a broad sense as the Reformers did or a more narrow sense, it still means &quot;renewal&quot;. And that renewal in any theological or biblical sense of the word is based on the activity of the Holy Spirit. The argument is not the effectualness of baptism or the Lord's Supper, but who are they effectual for in the visible church? To say that baptism is an effectual means of salvation can only mean that they are effectual for the elect. Not just anyone who gets baptized. What Lusk is arguing is that baptism can effectually &quot;initiate&quot; the activity of the Holy Spirit, which is counter to what the Standards teach (WCF 28, 5 &amp; 6).

Paul,

The fact that someone can point to a situation or theologian in the past and say &quot;well they believed it&quot; does not make it any less a heresy. Arianism was quite popular in the early church until it was condemned at Nicea. To paraphrase Cyprian &quot;there is no error like an old error.&quot;


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:1c215a069a][i:1c215a069a]Originally posted by Scott[/i:1c215a069a]
Curt:

In the same way that one could believe that the preaching of the Word regenerates people. Anglicans would affirm that the work of baptism is attributable completely to the Holy Spirit, who is present in baptism. The Spirit works to instill, increase, and stregthen faith through baptism. It is this faith that saves and is the alone instrument of salvation. Baptism is not an instrument of salvation.

Sola Fide does not mean that God does not use means to implant, stregthen and increase faith. God uses the Word, prayer, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. So, faith alone does not mean faith apart from the Word, faith apart from prayer, faith apart from baptism, etc.

Scott [/quote:1c215a069a]

According to the Anglican view, wouldn't it be correct to say that they believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates you when you are baptized instead of baptism regenerates you?Saying, &quot;baptism regenerates you&quot;, sounds like that it is the baptism that has the regenerating power.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:8c4e53bdb5]According to the Anglican view, wouldn't it be correct to say that they believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates you when you are baptized instead of baptism regenerates you?Saying, &quot;baptism regenerates you&quot;, sounds like that it is the baptism that has the regenerating power.[/quote:8c4e53bdb5]

I'm not answering your question here, because I am not sure how all Anglicans see baptism (it varies); but I don't see how saying &quot;baptism regenerates you&quot; is any worse than &quot;baptism that now saves you&quot; in 1 Pet. 3:21.

Paul



[Edited on 6-11-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Craig (Jun 10, 2004)

Some context to that verse you referred to, Paul
[quote:7ba39e3f3c]
18 For (17) Christ also died for sins (18) once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might (19) bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 
21 Corresponding to [b:7ba39e3f3c]that[/b:7ba39e3f3c], baptism now saves you-- [i:7ba39e3f3c]not the removal of dirt from the flesh[/i:7ba39e3f3c], but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. 
[/quote:7ba39e3f3c]

Repeating ver batim a Scripture out of context isn't being scriptural. Peter is referring to what the sign of baptism points to and makes an interesting connection between it and Noah...more an more I'm coming to see this strange trend amongst the Reformed at trying to sound Romish, and this speak of &quot;presumptive regeneration&quot; not just troubling. It's flirting with an apostate church that's already condemned the gospel to hell.

It's not just you, of course Paul. I am simply finding it troubling that this seems to be accepted and tolerated by people.

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Craig]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

...why thats not very Reformed of you, Craig


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:f3080aa38e]18 For (17) Christ also died for sins (18) once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might (19) bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 
21 Corresponding to [i:f3080aa38e]that[/i:f3080aa38e], baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.[/quote:f3080aa38e]

What is the &quot;that&quot; referring to? It is referring to the symbolism of the baptism of Noah and his family on the arc. This is very simple. It says &quot;Corresponding.&quot; Corresponding to what? Corresponding to Noah's baptism which was a type of our baptism. Still, this doesn't [i:f3080aa38e]necessarily[/i:f3080aa38e] teach baptismal regeneration.

Paul


----------



## Craig (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:9e5629a2de]
...why thats not very Reformed of you, Craig 
[/quote:9e5629a2de]
Very Reformed, actually.

Calvin states his summary of the meaning of baptism this way:
[quote:9e5629a2de]
First, it is a doctrine well enough known and confessed among all godly men that a right consideration of signs does not rest soley in external ceremonies, but depends CHIEFLY upon the promise and the spiritual mysteries, which the Lord ordains the ceremonies themselves to represent. Therefore, let him who would fully learn the value of baptism, its object, and indeed its entire nature, not fix his thought upon the ELEMENT and the PHYSICAL appearance, but rather raise it to God's promises which are THERE OFFERED to us, and to the inner mysteries which are represented in it......It therefore now remains for us, from the promises given in baptism, to inquire what its force and nature are. Scripture declares that baptism first points to the cleansing of our sins, which we obtain from Christ's blood; then to the mortification of our flesh, which rests upon participation in his death and through which believers are reborn into newness of life and into the fellowship of Christ. All that is taught in the Scriptures concerning baptism can be referred to this summary, except that baptism is also a symbol for bearing witness to our religion before men.
[/quote:9e5629a2de]

The summary of ALL that is taught in scripture seems to point to the work of Christ. Baptism is a sign and a seal of God's promise. Baptism isn't bring regeneration....there is a promise of the One Who does. 

But I don't need Calvin to point out the plain truth. I already quoted the context from 1 Peter 3 to show your confusion.

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Craig]


----------



## Craig (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:43a69159fa]
Corresponding to what? Corresponding to Noah's baptism which was a type of our baptism. Still, this doesn't necessarily teach baptismal regeneration. 
[/quote:43a69159fa]
Paul, it's simple what it corresponds to. Peter states explicily that it isn't the [i:43a69159fa]mere symbol[/i:43a69159fa] that washes away dirt that saves us...this points to something....just like the water in the Flood pointed to something....what could that be? Read 1 Peter 3:18 &amp; 21


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:aa990ac1d0]Paul, it's simple what it corresponds to. Peter states explicily that it isn't the mere symbol that washes away dirt that saves us...this points to something....just like the water in the Flood pointed to something....what could that be? Read 1 Peter 3:18 &amp; 21[/quote:aa990ac1d0]

Oh sure. But I am asking what it refers to [i:aa990ac1d0]in the passage at hand[/i:aa990ac1d0]. Peter is arguing from the flood to the Christian baptism. Of course, this baptism washes away more than dirt, because this baptism has spiritual effects; and the Flood was only a type of it. 

Paul


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

I said:
[quote:debb1f141b]Peter is arguing from the flood to the Christian baptism.[/quote:debb1f141b]

Let me clarify that the Flood is only an antitype. I am not saying that the Flood came before (in history) the spiritual effects of baptism (washing and regeneration). It is only that from verse 19 on he is arguing from the Flood to baptism. I realize that verse 18 is talking about the spiritual effects (made alive).

The &quot;corresponding to that&quot; is definitely corresponds to the previous sentence.

Paul

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:28204280a0][i:28204280a0]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:28204280a0]
[quote:28204280a0]According to the Anglican view, wouldn't it be correct to say that they believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates you when you are baptized instead of baptism regenerates you?Saying, &quot;baptism regenerates you&quot;, sounds like that it is the baptism that has the regenerating power.[/quote:28204280a0]

I'm not answering your question here, because I am not sure how all Anglicans see baptism (it varies); but I don't see how saying &quot;baptism regenerates you&quot; is any worse than &quot;baptism that now saves you&quot; in 1 Pet. 3:21.

Paul



[Edited on 6-11-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote:28204280a0]

Those who believe in baptismal regeneration claim that 1 Peter 3:21 teaches baptismal regeneration because 1 Peter 3:21 says, &quot;baptism that now saves you&quot;.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 11, 2004)

When Peter says, &quot;baptism now saves you&quot;, he explains what he means by saying, &quot;not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience&quot;. Peter is not talking about water or the ceremony. He is talking about an appeal to God.


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

There is nothing unreformed about saying &quot;baptism saves.&quot; The Westminster Larger catechism (a preminently reformed document) uses this language:

Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted. 

Note the central thrust that the sacraments are &quot;effectual means of salvation.&quot; The catechism explains how this works in the same way I did earlier.

Further, the central thrust of the 1 Peter passage is that &quot;baptism saves.&quot;

[quote:3413990173]
In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. 
[/quote:3413990173]

Note the express language of salvation is used twice. The water of Noah's flood symbolizes &quot;baptism that now saves you also.&quot; Peter expressly says that the salvation is not from outward uncleanliess from dirt but is inward, the pledge of a good conscience. In other words, the outward washing of water has an inward effect.

Secondly, Peter expressly says that &quot;It [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,&quot; which is certainly consistent with Romans 6. 

Note that Peter does not say that &quot;Baptism is a symbol of your salvation.&quot; 

Scott

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

Here is an excerpt from a Sunday School lesson I did relating to baptism. It addresses how sacramental efficacy is consistent with sola fide.

God changes people into new creations through faith in His Son. It is by faith alone that we are justified before God. This faith is implanted, strengthened, and increased by the Holy Spirit. It is not a fruit of the natural man. So, for example, Paul says that faith is a gift. Eph. 2. When Peter confessed Christ, Jesus said that he was blessed and this belief was not something that came from man, but God. Matt. 16.
The Holy Spirit does not work to implant, strengthen, and increase the faith in some abstract way. Rather, He works through what our confession terms "means of grace," which under the New Covenant are the Word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and prayer. To understand "means of grace," think of God's grace as a reservoir of water with pipes connected to it. If you want water you must open the pipes. If you want God's grace you must access His means of grace. 
It is the work of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace that makes them efficacious (i.e. do what they are supposed to do). For example, consider the Word of God. Paul says that men cannot be saved without the preaching of the Word. 

. . . 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 
Rom. 10:13-14. 

The preaching of the Word is one of God's means of grace. Yet, it only saves people if the Holy Spirit enlightens their minds. The natural man can read or hear the Word preached and yet learn nothing. This is taught throughout the Bible. One example is 1 Corinthians 2, where Paul is describing why people accept or reject his apostolic teaching. He writes: 

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 
1 Cor. 2:12-14. 

Yet, when the Spirit opens minds and hearts, God uses the scriptures to work His grace. The same thing is true with baptism. The presence of the Spirit gives baptism its grace. Like the gracious blessing of the Word, God's gracious blessing from baptism does not come through something apart from faith but rather the Spirit works in baptism to strengthen and increase faith. It is this faith alone that justifies us. 


Scott


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:af65037895]
According to the Anglican view, wouldn't it be correct to say that they believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates you when you are baptized instead of baptism regenerates you?Saying, &quot;baptism regenerates you&quot;, sounds like that it is the baptism that has the regenerating power. 
[/quote:af65037895]

This practice is consistent with the Reformed view too. Consider the Westminster Confession 27.2: &quot;There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.&quot;

So we can call one by the other. Note that one proof text is Titus 3:5: &quot;Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.&quot; The Westminster divines acknowledged that &quot;washing of regeneration&quot; referred to baptism. 

For a good article on sacraments from an Anglican perspective see http://www.stlukesrec.org/dunlap1.html

I especially like the analogy of the sacraments to a ten dollar bill. It is at the bottom if you want to skip to that.

Scott


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

Historically there have been two other main errors concerning baptism. The first is that held by some Catholics and others, which is that the element of baptism, water, is what achieves salvation ex opere operato. The second error, held by Baptists and others, is that baptism is an empty sign, conveying no grace or spiritual power. In my experience, the modern Reformed world tends to fall into the second error much more than the first. While commenting on Ephesians 5:26, Calvin addressed both these errors:

[quote:69e3fe7676]
Here it is necessary to guard against unsound interpretation, lest the wicked superstition of men, as has frequently happened, change a sacrament [of baptism] into an idol. When Paul says that we are washed by baptism, his meaning is, that God employs it for declaring to us that we are washed, and at the same time performs what it represents. If the truth -- or, which is the same thing, the exhibition of the truth -- were not connected with baptism, it would be improper to say that baptism is the washing of the soul. At the same time, we must beware of ascribing to the sign, or to the minister, what belongs to God alone. We must not imagine that washing is performed by the minister, or that water cleanses the pollutions of the soul, which nothing but the blood of Christ can accomplish. In short, we must beware of giving any portion of our confidence to the element or to man; for the true and proper use of the sacrament is to lead us directly to Christ, and to place all our dependence upon him.

Others again suppose that too much importance is given to the sign, by saying that baptism is the washing of the soul. Under the influence of this fear, they labor exceedingly to lessen the force of the eulogium which is here pronounced on baptism. But they are manifestly wrong; for, in the first place, the apostle does not say that it is the sign which washes, but declares it to be exclusively the work of God. It is God who washes, and the honor of performing it cannot lawfully be taken from its Author and given to the sign. But there is no absurdity in saying that God employs a sign as the outward means. Not that the power of God is limited by the sign, but this assistance is accommodated to the weakness of our capacity. Some are offended at this view, imagining that it takes from the Holy Spirit a work which is peculiarly his own, and which is everywhere ascribed to him in Scripture. But they are mistaken; for God acts by the sign in such a manner, that its whole efficacy depends upon his Spirit. Nothing more is attributed to the sign than to be an inferior organ, utterly useless in itself, except so far as it derives its power from another source.

Equally groundless is their fear, that by this interpretation the freedom of God will be restrained. The grace of God is not confined to the sign; so that God may not, if he pleases, bestow it without the aid of the sign. Besides, many receive the sign who are not made partakers of grace; for the sign is common to all, to the good and to the bad alike; but the Spirit is bestowed on none but the elect, and the sign, as we have said, has no efficacy without the Spirit. The Greek participle kaqari&gt;sav, is in the past tense, as if he had said, &quot;After having washed.&quot; But, as the Latin language has no active participle in the past tense, I chose rather to disregard this, and to translate it (mundans) washing, instead of (mundatam) having been washed; which would have kept out of view a matter of far greater importance, namely, that to God alone belongs the work of cleansing.
[/quote:69e3fe7676]


----------



## Craig (Jun 11, 2004)

Paul
[quote:1a3f48b0cf]
But I am asking what it refers to in the passage at hand
[/quote:1a3f48b0cf]

Again, I refer you to the passage as it states what Peter is referring to: 

[quote:1a3f48b0cf]
v18 For Christ also died for sins (18) once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit
[/quote:1a3f48b0cf]
And
[quote:1a3f48b0cf]
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
[/quote:1a3f48b0cf]
And how, again, does Calvin define baptism?
[quote:1a3f48b0cf]
It therefore now remains for us, from the promises given in baptism, to inquire what its force and nature are. Scripture declares that baptism first points to the cleansing of our sins, which we obtain from Christ's blood; then to the mortification of our flesh, which rests upon participation in his death and through which believers are reborn into newness of life and into the fellowship of Christ. All that is taught in the Scriptures concerning baptism can be referred to this summary, except that baptism is also a symbol for bearing witness to our religion before men. 
[/quote:1a3f48b0cf]
As long as you state that baptism now saves us with the context of what baptism refers to, I agree with you. But obviously, as of late you are flirting with Roman Catholicism; so, I disagree with the nuance you are placing on it.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 11, 2004)

Would Lutherans have the same view of baptism as the Anglicans? Lutherans believe that baptism is more than just water; They believe that it is water with the word of God. It is the word of God that is effectual, not the water itself. They believe that when an infant is baptized, God gives faith to that infant.


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

Here is an article that contrasts Lutheran baptism with an Anglican view:
http://www.stlukesrec.org/dunlap2.html

Actually it is a pretty good overview of the different Protestant views at the time of the Reformation. 

When push comes to shove, I am with Calvin, who is also described in here.

Scott


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 11, 2004)

Craig, how are you going to jump from verse 18 to verse 21 without realizing the sentences in between? The &quot;corresponding to that&quot; is referring to the previous sentence; not something 3 verses back. This is the position of Calvin on this verse I believe. Please show me one Reformed writter who has come up with this rendition for this specific verse.

I am not trying to put nuances on anything. I disagree with the Roman position on baptism as of now.

Paul


----------



## yeutter (Jun 11, 2004)

The Lutheran view and Anglican view of Baptism are essentially the same.
Anglicans affirm that God does something in Baptism. The sacraments are a means of grace. Christ is present in them. The nature of His presence is a mystery. 
Lutherans like the Church of Rome also stress that Christ is present and active in the sacraments but they talk about it in terms of the miracle of our Lord's presence not in terms of the mystery of it.
I think you can talk about the presence and saving work of Christ in the sacraments and fully affirm the language of the Heidelberg Catechism.


----------



## Craig (Jun 11, 2004)

Paul said
[quote:ebd8603b22]
Craig, how are you going to jump from verse 18 to verse 21 without realizing the sentences in between? 
[/quote:ebd8603b22]
Paul, you know very well I'm not jumping around. In fact, the reason I piped in was because you quoted Peter out of context. A simple reading of the passage makes it abundantly clear. Peter BEGINS by stating what it is that REALLY saves us. He beautifully ties together the salvation Christ provides with the &quot;shadowy&quot; revelation through the events surrounding Noah, and then illustrates the interrelatedness between the Old and the New...we are saved in the same way Noah was: By God's grace, and it's beautiful how God providentially saved Noah and how He has commanded baptism.

Really, I see the passage as a unifying between the covenants. To get hung up on &quot;baptism now saves you&quot; actually does damage to what Peter was doing. You've now disjointed the passage, and you can't make sense out of it nor see the beautiful relatedness of the covenants. Honestly, the passage presents itself simply: Christ saves us, just as God saved Noah amidst the flood, and now He saves you through baptism...but lest you think he means baptism is what saves you, he reminds you he is using a literary styling, and presents you with a propositional statement:not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

You could say Peter is saying the same thing 3 times.
[quote:ebd8603b22]
The &quot;corresponding to that&quot; is referring to the previous sentence
[/quote:ebd8603b22]
No, that's if you play &quot;cut and paste&quot; with what Peter is doing. That isn't how you interpret the passage unless it is stating unequivicolly by proposition that &quot;baptism saves you&quot;: Yes. It does say this; but Peter was kind enough to let you know (because he anticipated people misunderstanding) he was using literary styling weaving revelatory history together under the salvation provided by Christ.
[quote:ebd8603b22]
This is the position of Calvin on this verse I believe
[/quote:ebd8603b22]
Great. You have his commentary on 1 Peter? Or are you guessing? I'm going to assume you're guessing because you didn't interact with how he clearly defined baptism in his Institutes.
[quote:ebd8603b22]
Please show me one Reformed writter who has come up with this rendition for this specific verse. 
[/quote:ebd8603b22]
How about you check out how Peter tells you to understand what he wrote? I'm only pointing out how he revealed HOW to understand him: the water that removes dirt doesn't save...it is Christ; it was Christ who saved Noah and wiped away the ungodly from the earth with water, and it is Christ who saves you who have received baptism for what it signifies.
[quote:ebd8603b22]
I disagree with the Roman position on baptism as of now. 
[/quote:ebd8603b22]
It really does concern me how you are toying around with Rome's ideas. I'm all for working through your faith...you're trying to work through it all at once. That's like cleaning a table by blowing the dust off and trying to catch each particle. Soak these ideas in prayer and start delving into these ideas more systematically....otherwise, you only created a bigger mess.

Sorry if my analogy is corny; but I can only see spiritual despair resulting from how you're approaching things. I'm all for advocating the historical faith, and not recreating the wheel. But you're demonstrating what happens when you've abandoned biblical faith for historical faith. Rome's definition of baptism destroys the revelation of Christ's Gospel.


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

Craig:

I will say your understanding of 1 Peter is incomprehensible to me. I cannot see anything you are saying from the text. 

You understanding sounds more anabaptist than Reformed in my opinion. I am not saying that to be critical. I would suggest that one reason people like Hahn explore Catholicism is precisely because the anabaptist views are not fair to the text.

Scott

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Craig (Jun 11, 2004)

Scott-
what's incomprehensible? I am not sure how you disagree with me.

Please help me understand what I'm missing uzzled:

From what I've read of Calvin, he didn't refer to this passage as proving anything beyond baptism being a sign of Grace, not an actual &quot;effecter&quot; of grace. I view the Lord's Table as a way to strengthen faith and cause it to grow...heck, i think baptism does also. But there is nothing received in baptism without faith. While I do believe babies can have faith (i.e. John the Baptist), it doesn't mean baptism is the way the child receives salvation. There is a promise offered; the Gospel of Christ is revealed by it, but without faith it accomplishes nothing to the recipient. The preaching of the Word brings faith; the sacraments are special means of grace (little &quot;g&quot.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:628fb7aca6]Great. You have his commentary on 1 Peter? Or are you guessing? I'm going to assume you're guessing because you didn't interact with how he clearly defined baptism in his Institutes.[/quote:628fb7aca6]

Yes, I DO have it and that is what I have been looking at the whole time. He is clear that the Flood was an antitype of baptism, this which now represents baptism with water. And this baptism with water represents our spiritual cleansing in which you are talking about. 

This is how he is arguing.
Flood --&gt; physical baptism --&gt; spiritual baptism (regeneration etc.)

He does mention spiritual baptism before the Flood (because spiritual baptism is the culmination of all these physical means of grace). But it does not follow that [i:628fb7aca6]after[/i:628fb7aca6] he mentioned being &quot;made alive,&quot; that he didn't argue the way I have shown above.

And if you think it is Roman that I believe that baptism transmits grace, then so be it. Of course this would be calling Calvin Roman...

Paul


----------



## Craig (Jun 12, 2004)

Paul, quote me Calvin on this. What you said he said I agree with! I didn't use the word &quot;antetype&quot; but I explained that Peter was linking the flood with baptism and unified these two with Christ's saving of us.

You would do well not to confuse your error as Calvin's. 

BTW, you didn't deal with my post. You like to argue from history, but Paul: you only have 17 years of your own history and maybe a few weeks reading of Christian history. You really do need to be careful about your views. Please take to heart Pastorway's rebuke and perhaps even the warning I gave you at the end of my previous post. I am genuinely concerned about the direction you're going.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:5b8f2b4978]Paul, quote me Calvin on this. What you said he said I agree with! I didn't use the word &quot;antetype&quot; but I explained that Peter was linking the flood with baptism and unified these two with Christ's saving of us. 

You would do well not to confuse your error as Calvin's.[/quote:5b8f2b4978]

I used the word 'antitype' a number of times. What Calvin said, I was saying all along. You said &quot;corresponding to that&quot; does not mean &quot;corresponding to the Flood,&quot; but instead corresponding to regeneration (or spiritual baptism). 

[quote:5b8f2b4978]You like to argue from history, but Paul: you only have 17 years of your own history and maybe a few weeks reading of Christian history.[/quote:5b8f2b4978]

A few weeks? Man, thats pretty daring...

[quote:5b8f2b4978]I am genuinely concerned about the direction you're going.[/quote:5b8f2b4978]

Oh, you mean Reformed?

Paul


----------

