39 Articles: Article 27

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't know if this is the wrong thread to post this in, but I'd like to discuss this article in the 39 Articles:

27. Of Baptism.
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. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
Two questions: Does this affirm covenantal baptism? Does this teach baptismal regeneration?
 

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
31. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
Does this teach unlimited atonement?
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
In both cases, the language is probably loose enough to accommodate a range of views.

The baptism language is consistent with the teaching of the WCF; but it is also open to interpretation along baptismal-regeneration lines.

The atonement language, "sins of the whole world," is simply lifted right out of 1Jn.2:2. So we really can't complain if a church confesses using Scriptural language. The reality is that once more, the terms as stated are subject to reading consistent with both a LA view, and UA.

The Anglicans always had a "big tent" approach, unless they were resisting Rome. I think the Anglo-Catholics really must cross their fingers to subscribe to the 39A.
 

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
In both cases, the language is probably loose enough to accommodate a range of views.

The baptism language is consistent with the teaching of the WCF; but it is also open to interpretation along baptismal-regeneration lines.

The atonement language, "sins of the whole world," is simply lifted right out of 1Jn.2:2. So we really can't complain if a church confesses using Scriptural language. The reality is that once more, the terms as stated are subject to reading consistent with both a LA view, and UA.

The Anglicans always had a "big tent" approach, unless they were resisting Rome. I think the Anglo-Catholics really must cross their fingers to subscribe to the 39A.
Reading through the articles, they sound thoroughly reformed and were, overall, a great read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top