# FV view on baptism vs. Anglican view.



## Soonerborn (Oct 26, 2009)

I found this article on a previous PB thread regarding Anglican baptism:

Anglican Faith - Baptism

The 3rd paragraph reads: 

By baptism, a person is made a child of God, becomes a member of Christ’s Body, is cleansed and reborn in the Spirit. He is not “converted” at that moment, does not become by a conscious act of human will a follower of Christ. What he does get is a clean slate and access to God’s grace, to use or not as he himself determines from that moment forward. He may choose not to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he has been given the key to that kingdom at that moment, to use if he will.

From the Joint FV Profession, they state the following on baptism: 

The Sacrament of Baptism 
We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28). 

My question: 

Is the FV view on baptism very similar to the Anglican view. Both seem to put emphasis on salvation being equated to human faithfulness. And both positions from I what I read seem to imply that a person obtaining real grace can fall away for apostasy. 

or am I way off in my thinking?


----------



## pastor John Otis (Oct 26, 2009)

*Pastor John M. Otis*

Mike,

This is Pastor John M. Otis, author of _ Danger In the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision. In response to your question, the quote that you gave is similar to the teaching of the Federal Vision that places saving graces at one's water baptism, and one can be said to be "elect" but apostatize.

You can read my extensive analysis of Steve Wilkins' Federal Vision views on my website and get my book. See Triumphant Publications Home_


----------



## Edward (Oct 26, 2009)

The historic Anglican position on Baptism:

XXVII. Of Baptisme.

Baptisme is not only a signe of profession, and marke of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened: but is also a signe of regeneration or newe byrth, whereby as by an instru*ment, they that receaue baptisme rightly, are grafted into the Church: the promises of the forgeuenesse of sinne, and of our adoption to be the sonnes of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed: fayth is confyrmed: and grace increased by vertue of prayer vnto God. The baptisme of young children, is in any wyse to be retayned in the Churche, as most agreable with the institution of Christe.
Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org


----------



## Soonerborn (Oct 26, 2009)

Edward said:


> The historic Anglican position on Baptism:
> 
> XXVII. Of Baptisme.
> 
> ...



Thanks. 

According to Article 16, it appears they may believe that true believers can fall from grace, and subsequently re-enter that grace. 


XVI. Of sinne after Baptisme.
Not euery deadly sinne willingly committed after baptisme, is sinne agaynst the holy ghost, and vnpardonable. Wherefore, the graunt of repentaunce is not to be denyed to such as fal into sinne after baptisme. After we haue receaued the holy ghost, we may depart from grace geuen, and fall into sinne, and by the grace of God (we may) aryse agayne and amend our lyues. And therefore, they are to be condemned, whiche say they can no more sinne as long as they lyue here, or denie the place of forgeuenesse to such as truely repent.


----------



## bouletheou (Oct 26, 2009)

I think the main question would be "what kind of grace?" If it means the grace that leads to justification, then that would be contrary to the Reformed understanding. If it means the grace given in sanctification, then not so much. 

Since, as someone once said, the Anglican Church has a Calvinistic creed, an Arminian clergy, and a Popish liturgy, I would be more inclined to see it as the latter understanding rather than the former.


----------

