• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Baptism and Born Again

Status
Not open for further replies.

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,548
658
Ohio
✟43,633.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Do you know these missionaries personally? I am very very sceptical of claims such as this. Before, during or after water baptism.
Yes I am well acquainted with the individuals and indeed they are as honest as the day is long, emotionally, physically and mentally healthy and outstanding men of Character There is no reason to be skeptical of their witness.

I question however why be skeptical of miracles? I know from things you have said in the past that you believe in Divine healing. What is harder to do mend a bone or give someone a language they have never heard?
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Since when were Analogies perfect?
I know - I just couldn't resist being picky.

Sorry.

But surely part of the point of the 3 legged stool analogy is that one of the legs can be a bit out and the thing will still stand ok. (But if one if one is massively out the whole thing comes down.)
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
This is what St. Augustine said,

Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so.
According to Augustine, the elect have faith and justification solely because God decided they would. Nothing these people do on their own free will has anything to do with it. That the elect think they are cooperating with God and contributing to their salvation is an illusion. The saved are saved solely because God predestined to save them and the unsaved are unsaved solely because God predestined not to save them.

This looks like Calvin's doctrine because it is Calvin's doctrine. But Calvin did not make it up, he simply repeated Augustine.

...or shall we say that he agreed with Augustine's scriptural exegesis? I think that's it.
 
Upvote 0

Colabomb

I seek sin like a moth towards flame, save me God.
Nov 27, 2003
9,310
411
38
Visit site
✟34,125.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I know - I just couldn't resist being picky.

Sorry.

But surely part of the point of the 3 legged stool analogy is that one of the legs can be a bit out and the thing will still stand ok. (But if one if one is massively out the whole thing comes down.)

That is why we never remove a leg, We just know which Leg is the sturdiest.
 
Upvote 0

haulpak

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2007
411
10
✟23,092.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
But which book of Common Prayer. Certainly doctrine shouldn't change but if you compare the 1928 with the 1979 it does. The BCP is a man-made book of man-made liturgy following a God revealed pattern, nothing more, nothing less.

The 1928 was not 'authorised' or accepted by Parliament.

That doesn't mean that the liturgical function is flawed but it does invalidate the comparison somewhat.

The 1979 is a widely accepted, authorised (been wrestled with etc) and is a good liturgical foundation of what we as Anglicans 'believe and practice'.
 
Upvote 0

Colabomb

I seek sin like a moth towards flame, save me God.
Nov 27, 2003
9,310
411
38
Visit site
✟34,125.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The 1928 was not 'authorised' or accepted by Parliament.

That doesn't mean that the liturgical function is flawed but it does invalidate the comparison somewhat.

The 1979 is a widely accepted, authorised (been wrestled with etc) and is a good liturgical foundation of what we as Anglicans 'believe and practice'.

Dad was referring to the american 1928 which was the proper BCP for the Episcopal Church for over 40 years, not the English which as you pointed out was never accepted.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The 1928 was not 'authorised' or accepted by Parliament.

The reference was to the American edition of 1928 (and then to the American book of 1979, by contrast).

The 1979 is a widely accepted, authorised (been wrestled with etc) and is a good liturgical foundation of what we as Anglicans 'believe and practice'.

Generally speaking, that's so, but a dozen or so significant differences are to be found. Various websites go over them and explain them. In fact, I was just reading an article the other day and would be happy to summarize the points, one by one, for you if you are interested.
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,548
658
Ohio
✟43,633.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
...or shall we say that he agreed with Augustine's scriptural exegesis? I think that's it.
You would have to correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that Calvin gave much credit to Augustine. I don't think he ever claimed that the doctrine of predestination was novel.
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,548
658
Ohio
✟43,633.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
The 1928 was not 'authorised' or accepted by Parliament.

That doesn't mean that the liturgical function is flawed but it does invalidate the comparison somewhat.

The 1979 is a widely accepted, authorised (been wrestled with etc) and is a good liturgical foundation of what we as Anglicans 'believe and practice'.
The 1928 didn't have to be authorized by Parliament, it is an PECUSA prayerbook.
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,548
658
Ohio
✟43,633.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Dad was referring to the american 1928 which was the proper BCP for the Episcopal Church for over 40 years, not the English which as you pointed out was never accepted.
OOps I see the problem sorry haulpak I was referring to Episcopal Church prayer books and should have made that clear. Please disreguard the above comment.
 
Upvote 0

Secundulus

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2007
10,065
849
✟14,425.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You would have to correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that Calvin gave much credit to Augustine. I don't think he ever claimed that the doctrine of predestination was novel.

Like you, I have been reading Calvin's Institutes lately. I am very much impressed with his writing and the extent on which he relies on the records of the early Church Fathers.

Even my Priest, as Anglo-Catholic/Papist as they come, tells me that Calvin's theology is sound. (with the exception of some of his ideas on the Eucharist, Apostolic Successeion, etc.)
 
Upvote 0
L

Librarian

Guest
I have been reading some articles by the Anglican Church online which state that [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]" Baptism is a ceremony representative of spiritual cleansing, ‘renewing’ a person upon entry into the Church", yet I have been told by an Anglican that one is 'born again' when baptized in water. The statements I have found say it is 'representative'. My own experience was that I was 'born again' and baptised in the Holy Spirit two years before water baptism. Is it the general opinion of the Anglican Church that I was not born again until water baptism?[/FONT]

Water baptism is a sign and a seal of God's covenant of grace. The Roman Catholics believe in a sacramental view that can be termed ex opere operato which was roundly condemned by the Low Church Anglicans. The High Church Anglicans however agree with it albeit in a moderated form. For example see E. B. Pusey's work on the subject.
 
Upvote 0

karen freeinchristman

More of You and less of me, Lord!
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2004
14,806
481
North west of England
✟84,907.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Water baptism is a sign and a seal of God's covenant of grace. The Roman Catholics believe in a sacramental view that can be termed ex opere operato which was roundly condemned by the Low Church Anglicans. The High Church Anglicans however agree with it albeit in a moderated form. For example see E. B. Pusey's work on the subject.
Hi Librarian. :wave:

Are you Anglican?
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟75,685.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is what St. Augustine said,
Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so.
According to Augustine, the elect have faith and justification solely because God decided they would. Nothing these people do on their own free will has anything to do with it. That the elect think they are cooperating with God and contributing to their salvation is an illusion. The saved are saved solely because God predestined to save them and the unsaved are unsaved solely because God predestined not to save them.

This looks like Calvin's doctrine because it is Calvin's doctrine. But Calvin did not make it up, he simply repeated Augustine.

The key part of that passage is "Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so.". So, from that, we can probably draw out a bit of why he was addressing this subject in the first place. Apparently, some folks thought that they chose God all on their own, without grace being involved, and with faith being simply a conscious act on the part of the believer, rather than a gift. I think this was pelganism, though I'm not sure (I'm sure Paladin can jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong -- he knows the technical terms for all the heresies :) ).

So, what St. Augustine was saying, against this group that thought that they were saved solely through their own choices and merits, and that God had only set up the system whereby they could jump through hurdles themselves, was that man is must be saved by grace first and foremost. It is only by the active grace of God that man comes to have faith, and only through faith that he can then do such good works as God has made available for him to do. What I don't read St. Augustine as saying, and that Calvin does say, is that man has no role in choosing to cooperate or not to cooperate with grace -- Calvin clearly felt that man could not exercise free will in the face of grace and would be saved if called, and that thus people were predestined for heaven or hell regardless of their own free will or have they might want. In essence, what we have is St. Augustine countering a heresy that man effects his own salvation by himself, and then Calvin agrees, but takes it so far that it's actually a heresy in the other direction, that man has absolutely no role and no ability to assent or decline salvation. St. Augustine wasn't careful about countering the Calvinist perspective on this, because there was no Calvin yet, he only had to correct against the polar opposite of Calvinism.

Now, admittedly, St. Augustine can probably be read as either affirming what I'm saying or what Calvin says, if his writings are taken on his own. That's why we have people from all different perspectives quoting St. Augustine on this issue. However, I think it best to interpret St. Augustine's writings in the framework of: a) the probable controversies of the time and b) the historic viewpoint of the Church. I don't see Calvinism as an Apostolic tradition, and even if it did have a few early adherents under a different name -- it did seem to die out for several centuries, at least. Also, if we look at the churches that claim Apostolic Succession -- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (Coptic), Assyrian Church of the East, and Anglican, all condemn this particular aspect of Calvinism except for Anglicanism. And Anglicanism doesn't actually formally accept it as a group -- it's at most half that do (probably less), with the others taking a more traditional view, or a Lutheran view (Which is a third variant on the concept).
 
Upvote 0
L

Librarian

Guest
Now, admittedly, St. Augustine

St. Augustine is an interesting kettle of fish. In his later life he retracted a lot of what he wrote on this issue but his Enchiridion is one of his later works an in that he sets forth his views quite clearly:

Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God's Free Grace.

And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for "He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens." And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, "who being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: "What shall we say then?" he says: "Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, "not of works," but, "of future works," and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, "God forbid;" that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God's doing this, and says: "For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Now, who but a fool would think that God was unrighteous, either in inflicting penal justice on those who had earned it, or in extending mercy to the unworthy? Then he draws his conclusion: "So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." Thus both the twins were born children of wrath, not on account of any works of their own, but because they were bound in the fetters of that original condemnation which came through Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved Jacob of His undeserved grace, and hated Esau of His deserved judgment. And as this judgment was due to both, the former learned from the case of the latter that the fact of the same punishment not falling upon himself gave him no room to glory in any merit of his own, but only in the riches of the divine grace; because "it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." And indeed the whole face, and, if I may use the expression, every lineament of the countenance of Scripture conveys by a very profound analogy this wholesome warning to every one who looks carefully into it, that he who glories should glory in the Lord.

Chapter 99. As God's Mercy is Free, So His Judgments are Just, and Cannot Be Gainsaid.

Now after commending the mercy of God, saying, "So it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy," that he might commend His justice also (for the man who does not obtain mercy finds, not iniquity, but justice, there being no iniquity with God), he immediately adds: "For the scripture says unto Pharoah, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." And then he draws a conclusion that applies to both, that is, both to His mercy and His justice: "Therefore has He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens." "He has mercy" of His great goodness, "He hardens" without any injustice; so that neither can he that is pardoned glory in any merit of his own, nor he that is condemned complain of anything but his own demerit. For it is grace alone that separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been involved in one common perdition through their common origin. Now if any one, on hearing this, should say, "Why does He yet find fault? for who has resisted His will?" as if a man ought not to be blamed for being bad, because God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens, God forbid that we should be ashamed to answer as we see the apostle answered: "Nay, but, O man, who are you that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why have You made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" Now some foolish people, think that in this place the apostle had no answer to give; and for want of a reason to render, rebuked the presumption of his interrogator. But there is great weight in this saying: "Nay, but, O man, who are you?" and in such a matter as this it suggests to a man in a single word the limits of his capacity, and at the same time does in reality convey an important reason. For if a man does not understand these matters, who is he that he should reply against God? And if he does understand them, he finds no further room for reply. For then he perceives that the whole human race was condemned in its rebellious head by a divine judgment so just, that if not a single member of the race had been redeemed, no one could justly have questioned the justice of God; and that it was right that those who are redeemed should be redeemed in such a way as to show, by the greater number who are unredeemed and left in their just condemnation, what the whole race deserved, and whither the deserved judgment of God would lead even the redeemed, did not His undeserved mercy interpose, so that every mouth might be stopped of those who wish to glory in their own merits, and that he that glories might glory in the Lord.

Chapter 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. II. 4: "Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved."

Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He "will have all men to be saved," although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: "The true light which lights every man that comes into the world:" not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him. Or, it is said, "Who will have all men to be saved;" not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by "all men," the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, "For kings, and for all that are in authority," who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour," that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: "You tithe mint, and rue, and every herb." For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by "every herb," every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by "all men," every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if "He has done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth," as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He has not done.
 
Upvote 0

karen freeinchristman

More of You and less of me, Lord!
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2004
14,806
481
North west of England
✟84,907.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi Karen,

I attend an Anglican Church but I do not really care for denominationalism as such. I am a huge fan of Keeble, Newman and Pusey although I do not agree with their theology.

I hope that is ok. :)
That sounds ok to me. Welcome. :)
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,548
658
Ohio
✟43,633.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Second guessing the Church's teaching on Baptism is somewhat like second guessing the Canon of the Bible.
Are you claiming that the Church has never changed its mind about baptism?

That might be difficult to defend.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.