Thread: Help! What Do Anglicans Teach Regarding Baptism?

Does the Church of England hold to the 39 Articles? Where can I find a confession of what they believe about baptism? More importantly, what do they teach about baptism? What would I expect to hear from an Anglican preacher about baptism?

The first sentence speaks volumes:

Anglican Faith - Baptism

I guess this is the official stance

Baptism, Confirmation and the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith

Originally Posted by KMK

Does the Church of England hold to the 39 Articles? Where can I find a confession of what they believe about baptism? More importantly, what do they teach about baptism? What would I expect to hear from an Anglican preacher about baptism?

As I'm sure you already know, Ken, the Anglican Church has had Henry VIII as its head, and J.C. Ryle as a Bishop... so there's been a lot of variety out there. :^)

You're probably looking for the official verbiage from their standards; but apparently you can hear a variety of things from individual pulpits. Here's a site I found some time ago that I found fascinating (I just picked one page to link to):

It's More Complex

It's a committee, including ordained Anglican ministers, who are seeking to reform how the Church of England as a whole approaches baptism. Two changes they seem to want to make, just from my browsing the site, are: (1) to de-emphasize teaching the urgency of parents bringing their infants to the sacrament, making it more of a decide-what-you-want-to-do kind of thing, apparently to make both paedobaptists and believer baptists feel at home, and (2) put a stop to the "baptize every baby in England" mentality, instead only encouraging actively religious Christians to bring their children.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

I guess this is the official stance

Baptism, Confirmation and the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith

From the site:

There are four reasons why the Church of England, unlike some other Christian traditions, has retained the practice of infant baptism.

* First, infant baptism is a practice that goes back to the very earliest days of the Church and is therefore something that the Church of England does not feel free to discard.
* Secondly, the Church of England believes that God’s merciful love, what Christians call God’s ‘grace’, always precedes our human response and enables it. Personal confession of faith following on from and responding to the grace of God received in infant baptism is consistent with this fact.
* Thirdly, we read in the gospels that Christ welcomed and blessed those infants that were brought to Him (Mark 10:13-15) and the Church of England believes that infant baptism is a way He continues to do this today.
* Fourthly, the Bible as a whole tells us that the children of believers are themselves part of God’s family and therefore The Church of England feels that it is right that they should have the sign of belonging to the family just as Jewish boys in the Old Testament had the sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14, Acts 2:39, 16:31, 1 Corinthians 7:14).

Is this what would be taught I wonder? Don't the Anglicans follows a liturgy?

Originally Posted by Ivan

The first sentence speaks volumes:

Anglican Faith - Baptism

I agree, but I think this represents one particular church and not a diocese.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Ivan

The first sentence speaks volumes:

Anglican Faith - Baptism

I agree, but I think this represents one particular church and not a diocese.

Indeed. If it were so would we read Packer, Stott, etc.?

The Liturgy for Holy Baptism

I recently read: The Two-Thousand Confessors of Sixteen Sixty Two about the ejection of non-conforming Puritan ministers during the reign of Charles II in England. In that book there is this interesting quote:

The revision of the prayer book at this time (1662--my insertion) seems to have been conducted with the express object of making it as distasteful as possible to the Puritans, and so of preventing any extensive conformity from taking place...Those matters about which the Puritans scrupled were now made more prominent, and a coherence and a systematic consitency were now, for the first time, given to those sacerdotal and sacramental theories, which had previiously existed in the Prayer Book only in an embryotic condition...In the Prayer Book as it came from the hands of the Reformers in 1552, they would find comparatively little to which they could object. But since the time of the Reformation the Prayer Book has undergone most material alterations--it has been subject to no less than three reactionary revisions. The first in 1559 was made with the politic object of facilitating the conformity of the Romanists, who were then a numerous and formidable body. The revisions of 1604 and 1662 were carried out under the auspices of the High Church party, with the object of over-riding and crushing the Puritans and rendering their conformity distasteful or impossible. (pp.35-36)

There are obviously places in the 1662 book of common prayer that expressly teach baptismal regeneration, for example... (coming from the liturgy for baptism)

"SEEING now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning."

and

"WE yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit..."

I am unaware if the modern liturgy of the Church of England is different.

I don't know about baptism, so I've held off posting on the thread, but I suspect that it's a lot like the Lord's Supper. With that sacrament, the high church Anglicans hold a view that is very close to Rome, the low church are much more reformed in their view.

So it may be impossible to come up with a single Anglican view of Baptism.

Originally Posted by Edward

With that sacrament, the high church Anglicans hold a view that is very close to Rome, the low church are much more reformed in their view.

In what way, is the Anglican view on the Lord's Supper "very close to Rome?"

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Edward

With that sacrament, the high church Anglicans hold a view that is very close to Rome, the low church are much more reformed in their view.

In what way, is the Anglican view on the Lord's Supper "very close to Rome?"

I know 'high-church' Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) who fully believe in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. On the other hand, I have met some 'low-church' Anglicans (Evangelicals/Reformed) whose views on the sacrament are basically the same as what Westminster Confession-adhering Presbyterians believe. Your run-of-the-mill liberal/moderate 'middle way' Anglican, who knows...

Uniformity on these kinds of doctrinal points has never been one of the Anglican Communion's virtues.

Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Edward

With that sacrament, the high church Anglicans hold a view that is very close to Rome, the low church are much more reformed in their view.

In what way, is the Anglican view on the Lord's Supper "very close to Rome?"

I know 'high-church' Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) who fully believe in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. On the other hand, I have met some 'low-church' Anglicans (Evangelicals/Reformed) whose views on the sacrament are basically the same as what Westminster Confession-adhering Presbyterians believe. Your run-of-the-mill liberal/moderate 'middle way' Anglican, who knows...

Uniformity on these kinds of doctrinal points has never been one of the Anglican Communion's virtues.

Deviation occurs in any denomination, even among Presbyterians and Baptists. My question is not how various groups or individuals deviate, but whether the official Anglican stance is "very close to Rome."

If the OP is asking what is the official teaching on baptism within the Church of England, that is different than how certain Anglicans view Baptism. The same is true in regards to the Lord's Supper.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist

Originally Posted by Whitefield

In what way, is the Anglican view on the Lord's Supper "very close to Rome?"

I know 'high-church' Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) who fully believe in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. On the other hand, I have met some 'low-church' Anglicans (Evangelicals/Reformed) whose views on the sacrament are basically the same as what Westminster Confession-adhering Presbyterians believe. Your run-of-the-mill liberal/moderate 'middle way' Anglican, who knows...

Uniformity on these kinds of doctrinal points has never been one of the Anglican Communion's virtues.

Deviation occurs in any denomination, even among Presbyterians and Baptists. My question is not how various groups or individuals deviate, but whether the official Anglican stance is "very close to Rome."

If the OP is asking what is the official teaching on baptism within the Church of England, that is different than how certain Anglicans view Baptism. The same is true in regards to the Lord's Supper.

I was more curious to find out what was being taught. Sometimes what a denomination or religion believes is not what is taught.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist

I know 'high-church' Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) who fully believe in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. On the other hand, I have met some 'low-church' Anglicans (Evangelicals/Reformed) whose views on the sacrament are basically the same as what Westminster Confession-adhering Presbyterians believe. Your run-of-the-mill liberal/moderate 'middle way' Anglican, who knows...

Uniformity on these kinds of doctrinal points has never been one of the Anglican Communion's virtues.

Deviation occurs in any denomination, even among Presbyterians and Baptists. My question is not how various groups or individuals deviate, but whether the official Anglican stance is "very close to Rome."

If the OP is asking what is the official teaching on baptism within the Church of England, that is different than how certain Anglicans view Baptism. The same is true in regards to the Lord's Supper.

I was more curious to find out what was being taught. Sometimes what a denomination or religion believes is not what is taught.

That is definitely true. So, if it is not the official stance you are seeking, are you seeking what individual pastor's teach, or individual churches, or seminaries?

The following is from the 39 Articles of the Church of England:

Article XXV: Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.



Article XXVII: 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 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.

According to the 39 Articles, the sacraments strengthen and confirm our faith.

Article XXVII says that those who receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church. How is baptism received rightly? Is it through faith? If so, can infants have faith in Christ? What is the Church? Is the Church all of those whom the Father elected to salvation or a particular congregation of professing Christians at a particular location?

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Deviation occurs in any denomination, even among Presbyterians and Baptists. My question is not how various groups or individuals deviate, but whether the official Anglican stance is "very close to Rome."

If the OP is asking what is the official teaching on baptism within the Church of England, that is different than how certain Anglicans view Baptism. The same is true in regards to the Lord's Supper.

I was more curious to find out what was being taught. Sometimes what a denomination or religion believes is not what is taught.

That is definitely true. So, if it is not the official stance you are seeking, are you seeking what individual pastor's teach, or individual churches, or seminaries?

I am interested in what kinds of presuppositions my two parishoners from the Church in Wales might have about baptism. I realize they may have been educated in some of the official doctrine but from what I understand the Church in Wales is fairly liberal which means they might leave out some stuff in their teaching.

Originally Posted by Ivan

The first sentence speaks volumes:

Anglican Faith - Baptism

Wonder what really happened to the thief on the cross?

Ken, try this book Amazon.com: Baptism: It's Purpose, Practice and Power: Michael Green: Books

I read this book years ago while I was just begining to explore infant baptism, and it was very helpful. I have seen this book on the booktable & in pastors libraries in several evangelical anglican churches since.

Originally Posted by sjonee

Originally Posted by Ivan

The first sentence speaks volumes:

Anglican Faith - Baptism

Wonder what really happened to the thief on the cross?

If you read the history on this particular church, they are a break away church. ("the Missionary Diocese withdrew from ECUSA in 1992 and formed the Episcopal Missionary Church.") I don't it is representative of Anglican theology. It states that matrimony is a sacrament.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

In what way, is the Anglican view on the Lord's Supper "very close to Rome?"

My question is not how various groups or individuals deviate, but whether the official Anglican stance is "very close to Rome."

Well, you asked two different questions. I didn't respond to the first one, since Mr. Tyler had done a fine job of answering. If you want the 'official Anglican stance', I'd refer you to the 39 Articles. If you want to know what they actually believe, I'd refer you to my post above. Some, probably a minority, actually follow the Articles. Some follow the Roman formula. Some probably consider it a spiritually meaningless social tradition.

-----Added 4/25/2009 at 11:38:26 EST-----

Originally Posted by KMK

I am interested in what kinds of presuppositions my two parishoners from the Church in Wales might have about baptism. I realize they may have been educated in some of the official doctrine but from what I understand the Church in Wales is fairly liberal which means they might leave out some stuff in their teaching.

I believe that you'll have to ask them to find out what, if anything, they believe or have been taught about Baptism.

Baptist would seem to be a mighty long jump if they have fully developed views on the subject.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Whitefield

In what way, is the Anglican view on the Lord's Supper "very close to Rome?"

My question is not how various groups or individuals deviate, but whether the official Anglican stance is "very close to Rome."

Well, you asked two different questions. I didn't respond to the first one, since Mr. Tyler had done a fine job of answering. If you want the 'official Anglican stance', I'd refer you to the 39 Articles. If you want to know what they actually believe, I'd refer you to my post above. Some, probably a minority, actually follow the Articles. Some follow the Roman formula. Some probably consider it a spiritually meaningless social tradition.

To state that a particular (deviant) group within a denomination define the teachings of a denomination doesn't really prove much at all. One could say that the PCA believes in FV by citing the Auburn Ave. webpage, or that it believes in deaconesses by citing the NY Metro. My question still stands .. How does Anglican theology on the Lord's Supper come "very close to Rome?"

I am acquainted with the 39 Articles and do not find Rome in them.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Whitefield

In what way, is the Anglican view on the Lord's Supper "very close to Rome?"

My question is not how various groups or individuals deviate, but whether the official Anglican stance is "very close to Rome."

Well, you asked two different questions. I didn't respond to the first one, since Mr. Tyler had done a fine job of answering. If you want the 'official Anglican stance', I'd refer you to the 39 Articles. If you want to know what they actually believe, I'd refer you to my post above. Some, probably a minority, actually follow the Articles. Some follow the Roman formula. Some probably consider it a spiritually meaningless social tradition.

To state that a particular (deviant) group within a denomination define the teachings of a denomination doesn't really prove much at all. One could say that the PCA believes in FV by citing the Auburn Ave. webpage, or that it believes in deaconesses by citing the NY Metro. My question still stands .. How does Anglican theology on the Lord's Supper come "very close to Rome?"

I am acquainted with the 39 Articles and do not find Rome in them.

You've gotten answers to your various questions. If you don't like the answers you've gotten, do your own research.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Edward

Well, you asked two different questions. I didn't respond to the first one, since Mr. Tyler had done a fine job of answering. If you want the 'official Anglican stance', I'd refer you to the 39 Articles. If you want to know what they actually believe, I'd refer you to my post above. Some, probably a minority, actually follow the Articles. Some follow the Roman formula. Some probably consider it a spiritually meaningless social tradition.

To state that a particular (deviant) group within a denomination define the teachings of a denomination doesn't really prove much at all. One could say that the PCA believes in FV by citing the Auburn Ave. webpage, or that it believes in deaconesses by citing the NY Metro. My question still stands .. How does Anglican theology on the Lord's Supper come "very close to Rome?"

I am acquainted with the 39 Articles and do not find Rome in them.

You've gotten answers to your various questions. If you don't like the answers you've gotten, do your own research.