tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424136.post6136840105165810273..comments2024-01-29T06:25:17.244-05:00Comments on philorthodox: What Do Anglicans Really Believe About Baptism?The Most Reverend Chandler Holder Jones, SSChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597996290993316169noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424136.post-13751241459162493152008-02-25T07:17:00.000-05:002008-02-25T07:17:00.000-05:00Mark 16:16 says He who believes and is baptized sh...Mark 16:16 says He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Infants are not capable of "believing", and so are considered innocent in the eyes of God. They would not be held accountable until they had reached the age of accountability. Baptism is immersion, because in Acts 8 it says that Philip went down into the water, and then came out. Luke 3:3 says that baptism was for the remission of sins, so if it was before the Cross why wouldn't it be after the Cross too? Please look at trulysaved.blogspot.com. Can you afford to be wrong???Brother Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339058023942096695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424136.post-71341399839119949452008-01-21T09:38:00.000-05:002008-01-21T09:38:00.000-05:00AC+ and CHJ+Thank you for these excellent remarks....AC+ and CHJ+<BR/><BR/>Thank you for these excellent remarks.<BR/><BR/>JGA+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424136.post-43317728612133768102008-01-20T22:57:00.000-05:002008-01-20T22:57:00.000-05:00Here is my posting to Stand Firm on this issue:"Th...Here is my posting to Stand Firm on this issue:<BR/><BR/>"This essay demonstrates one of the problems with those now leaving ECUSA or coming into Anglicanism and seeing that this is the time to rewrite the theology of the Church Catholic: The desire to deconstruct the Book of Common Prayer, to build theology again from the ground up, ignoring that classical Anglicanism has no faith of its own, that it accepts the teachings of the undivided Church, that the liturgy of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Articles are authoritative teachings. <BR/><BR/>Anglicans practice infant Baptism. Read the 1662 Prayer Book and the Articles--don’t rewrite them and/or reject them. If this is the road that the neo-Anglicans are to follow, it is no better than ECUSA. Some years ago I saw an AMiA parish web site that posted the 39 Articles and yet also stated that it did not practice infant Baptism as anything more than a “dedication ceremony.” The contradiction did not appear to be obvious to them."<BR/><BR/>Also, Bishop Cheney accepted the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as it is stated in the Articles and by Browne's Exposition on the Articles. The only sense in which it was rejected was by equating the term "regeneration" with "fullness of religious life. . .incipient holiness, ardent desires after God, and elevated affections." Many during that time insisted that this was indeed what the term meant, so he felt that he could not, in good conscience, continue to employ the term. Was he wrong in his actions, cutting up the service, leaving out the word?--arguably so, but arguably correct in his theology, which is now largely admitted. <BR/><BR/>Cheney did not break with the Episcopal Church "on Baptism," but on an erroneous interpretation of what "regeneration" meant. The Articles explain clearly what it meant, but others wished to equate it with the full change of religious life mentioned above. Both sides were incorrect in their use of the terminology, wanting to make it mean "born again" in a modern evangelical sense. In this case the typical mantra that "Cheney rejected baptismal regeneration" is historically and theologically inaccurate. He rejected a word, but not the doctrine as held in the Articles. The Reformed Episcopal Church (and the Free Church of England) always continued the practice of infant Baptism. The FCofE service of Baptism is identical to that of the 1662 BCP, as is their Article on Baptism. The early "Cheneyesque" REC service substituted the language of the Articles into the service in place of the word "regeneration" (but retained the Sign of the Cross). Since the early 1990s the 1662 Baptismal service has been reinstated in the American REC Prayer Book; in the English REC/FCofE BCP it never left.<BR/><BR/>Bishop Sutton's text on the matter explains the situation most fully and accurately.<BR/><BR/>AC+Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424136.post-73004165182596190162008-01-18T11:28:00.000-05:002008-01-18T11:28:00.000-05:00Would it be heterorthodox for an Anglican to divor...Would it be heterorthodox for an Anglican to divorce St. Augustine’s understanding of Original Sin from baptismal regeneration? I believe the Eastern Church has rejected Original Sin. They believe (as I understand it) that mankind suffers the penalty of death due to Adam’s sin, but each individual is not guilty of the sin of Adam. I think Romans 5 leans towards the Eastern understanding, but it wouldn’t rule out St. Augustine’s either. It seems the doctrine of Original Sin goes further than is necessary and also complicates later doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception. Original Sin also forces us to believe that unbaptized children will be damned, a point that I’m not comfortable with, but one that I haven’t rejected either. I know there are certain Psalms that seem to indicate some sort of sinfulness before or after birth, but 1 John 3:4 seems to define sin in a way that a newborn would be incapable of and most interesting in Deut 1:39 God will allow the children into the promised land due to their age. So I guess I’m sitting on the fence with Original Sin, but I certainly am not with baptismal regeneration, which is a tenet of the Faith once given.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com