Credo-Baptist Anglicans

[Iosias]

Does anyone know of any Credo-Baptist Anglicans? I have read somewhere some names of such divines but I cannot recall where!

 

[picnic]

Are you looking more for historical or modern day people?

The anglican church I went to as an undergraduate was basically credo-baptist and have a baptistry. Infant baptisms did happen when church members wanted them but the minister was of credo-baptist position. I think during my time there all three of his children were baptised as young adults.

 

[DeoJuvante]

Credo-baptism would be a sharp break from contemporary Anglican belief and practice.

 

[pmcleanj]

Credo-baptism would be a sharp break from contemporary Anglican belief and practice.

No, I don't think it would be actually. A dull break, perhaps, or maybe only a greenstick fracture.

The baptismal norm for the entire Christian Church is the baptism by immersion of adult converts. I'm using "norm" in its technical sense of "the standard, model, or pattern against which actual examples of an object or practice are evaluated". Paedobaptism by (restrained) pouring is certainly more common, but it is acceptable because it compares acceptably with the norm, NOT because it is more common.

An infant is equivalent to an adult in its ability to receive grace. Water on the forehead is equivalent to water on the head, shoulders and torso in its ability to signify and effect grace. So paedo-baptism is acceptable because it is equivalent to the baptism of adult converts.

Now, if to argue credo-baptism is to argue that paedo-baptism may NOT occur, then you must argue some supporting position: for example, that baptism is not a sacrament (which would be a sharp break with the teaching of Scripture, Tradition, the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Articles); or that infants are NOT equally able to receive grace (which would be a sharp break with the teaching of Scripture, Tradition, the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Articles). And I think that is indeed what most pure credo-baptists argue, which is why I agree with you that it is still a break.

But the practice described, of emphasising the role of conversion and of effecting adult baptisms, with the infant baptisms included and allowed precisely because the infants are part of the household of faith rather than because "it's time to have him 'done', Vicar", is a norm of the universal Church.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We have a tank in our church for adult baptisms. We also have a font for infants.

It's not that we specifically encourage parents to leave their children to bring themselves to baptism - we find that there are lots of adults who were brought up unchurched, who come to Christ in later life.

 

[pmcleanj]

We have a tank in our church for adult baptisms. We also have a font for infants.

You guys are just so blasted Low-Church traditional, it blows my mind. When my church grows up, I want it to be like yours.

Well, mostly. (If you would only take up Plain Chant, your church would match my vision of heaven.)

Helen Belcher, the priest at (I think it is) Holy Trinity in Toronto, baptizes even the little babies by immersion. If you swish 'em through fast enough, their diving reflex keeps them from breathing in any water.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

You guys are just so blasted Low-Church traditional, it blows my mind. When my church grows up, I want it to be like yours.

Well, mostly. (If you would only take up Plain Chant, your church would match my vision of heaven.)

Thanks!

Helen Belcher, the priest at (I think it is) Holy Trinity in Toronto, baptizes even the little babies by immersion. If you swish 'em through fast enough, their diving reflex keeps them from breathing in any water.

My inlaws RC church does this. They have a large octagonal pool that probably holds about a foot of water.

Our pool is coffin-shaped and the water is about waist high before the dunking.

 

[Iosias]

Are you looking more for historical or modern day people?

Historical, there were a few in the 17th Century I believe but as I said above, their names escape me and I can't recall where I read it...perhaps Packer's book.

 

[Iosias]

Now, if to argue credo-baptism is to argue that paedo-baptism may NOT occur, then you must argue some supporting position: for example, that baptism is not a sacrament (which would be a sharp break with the teaching of Scripture, Tradition, the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Articles);

Actually the credo-baptists that drew up the Second London Baptist Confession held that baptism was a sacrament.

or that infants are NOT equally able to receive grace (which would be a sharp break with the teaching of Scripture, Tradition, the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Articles).

I do not know that they would have to reject this. I certainly am more convinced than ever of the baptist case and would still argue that infants are able to receive grace.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Actually the credo-baptists that drew up the Second London Baptist Confession held that baptism was a sacrament.



I do not know that they would have to reject this. I certainly am more convinced than ever of the baptist case and would still argue that infants are able to receive grace.

As a former Baptist (for 37 years) I have to say that Baptists would vehemently argue with you about that. They allow for *no* grace being imparted by baptism, or for the existence of sacraments at all!

Mary

 

[pmcleanj]

Some might hold that accepting paedo-baptism is a confessional requirement of being Anglican ...

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.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

You guys are just so blasted Low-Church traditional, it blows my mind. When my church grows up, I want it to be like yours.

Well, mostly. (If you would only take up Plain Chant, your church would match my vision of heaven.)

Helen Belcher, the priest at (I think it is) Holy Trinity in Toronto, baptizes even the little babies by immersion. If you swish 'em through fast enough, their diving reflex keeps them from breathing in any water.

Yep. Orthodox babies get dunked 3 times quickly. Though we did recently have a baptism of a baby who had been born prematurely and still had some medical issues, who was not completely immersed. He was immersed up to his chest each time.

Mary

 

[Iosias]

As a former Baptist (for 37 years) I have to say that Baptists would vehemently argue with you about that. They allow for *no* grace being imparted by baptism, or for the existence of sacraments at all!

Mary

It depends; Reformed Baptists hold to it as being a sacrament.

1. Q. Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to Reformed Baptist theology?
   
   A. Some Reformed Baptists prefer not to use the term "sacrament" due to some negative historical associations. However, Reformed Baptists fully affirm a Reformed view of the sacraments as a means of grace.
   The 1689 Confession is admittedly not as clear on this point as it could be. But Keach's Catechism, which was written to clarify the theology of the Confession, makes it pretty clear:
   
   Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
   A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)
   Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
   A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
   Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God? A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)
   ​
   Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology.
2. Q. How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism?
   A. It is too narrow a reading of the terms "means of grace" and "effectual to salvation" to limit them to the moment of conversion. Christ "communicates to us the benefits of redemption" in an ongoing way not only to regenerate and justify us initially but also to sanctify and preserve us throughout our Christian lives. When the Shorter Catechism (Q. 89) and Keach's Catechism (Q. 96) ask "How is the Word made effectual to salvation?", they do not limit the effect of the Word in salvation to the moment of conversion. In fact, they explicitly affirm in the answer that the Word is effectual to salvation both in conversion and in continuing the Christian life:
   A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.​
   The two catechisms have identical answers to this question.
   Some Reformed Baptists may be uncomfortable with this second response, but I'll state it anyway. Baptists have historically seen baptism as the culmination of the conversion experience. Among other things, it seals and confirms, both to the party being baptized and to others, that the party has engaged to be the Lord's and is now united with Him. Although no warrant is given to baptize someone with the goal of converting him, in many cases the person may exercise faith in Christ through the means either of contemplating or participating in baptism. Beasley-Murray in Baptism in the New Testament makes a very strong case that the conversion experience and the act of baptism need not be separated in our conception of the two, since the NT so often speaks of them in an interchangeable manner. This is true, in spite of the fact that the two can be separated for study or in one's experience. From the believer's perspective, baptism can be viewed as a visible prayer in which the believer "signifies [his] ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and [his] engagement to be the Lord's." One could also theoretically benefit from a sacrament as a means of grace before being converted, as paedobaptists argue that infants do in baptism. The objection to infant baptism in this respect is twofold. First, infants are not eligible for baptism and thus have no divine warrant to participate in a means of grace that is not designed for them. Second, baptism is a means of grace at the moment of participation (as well as before and after) that requires the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized. If God chose to design a means of grace to be applied to the unconverted and/or to those who can't voluntarily participate, then we should have no problem imagining how they might benefit from it. But if the design includes the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized, then it is a perversion and a truncation of the sacrament to admit anyone else.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#6

 

[Iosias]

Some might hold that accepting paedo-baptism is a confessional requirement of being Anglican ...

Indeed, how young is young?

 

[pmcleanj]

Indeed, how young is young?

According to the Prayer Book, young enough that they require someone to answer on their behalf; otherwise they would be considered "such as are of riper years".

 

[Mary of Bethany]

It depends; Reformed Baptists hold to it as being a sacrament.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#6

Interesting. I was with the Southern Baptists, and they aren't Reformed. They may be more prevalent in Britain, although from the posts I see in CF's Baptist forum, it seems more Baptists are taking on Reform beliefs here, too.

But I'd still be shocked to see anything like what you posted in a Baptist church in the States!

Mary

 

[Iosias]

According to the Prayer Book, young enough that they require someone to answer on their behalf; otherwise they would be considered "such as are of riper years".

Indeed, twas more tongue in cheek

Anyhow I found who it was: John Tombes (1603-1676)

 

[Iosias]

Interesting. I was with the Southern Baptists, and they aren't Reformed.

The Founder's movement in the SBC is pushing this position I believe.

If you do not mind me asking (feel free to start a new thread as this is not inline with the OP but as I was the OP author ...) what made you change from Baptist to Orthodox?

 

[DeoJuvante]

Credo-baptism would be a sharp break from contemporary Anglican belief and practice.

No, I don't think it would be actually. A dull break, perhaps, or maybe only a greenstick fracture.

The baptismal norm for the entire Christian Church is the baptism by immersion of adult converts. I'm using "norm" in its technical sense of "the standard, model, or pattern against which actual examples of an object or practice are evaluated". Paedobaptism by (restrained) pouring is certainly more common, but it is acceptable because it compares acceptably with the norm, NOT because it is more common.
...

When I speak of credo-baptism, I am referring to the position that infants may not be baptised and the practice of restricting baptism to infants, which clearly is a sharp break. It is spurious to observe that we have always baptised adults as a justification for credo-baptism because that can not justify refusing the Sacrament to children (or worse yet, committing sacrilege by re-baptising those baptised as children).

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I think it would be better if I sent you a PM so I don't get into Orthodoxy on here. We do share a lot of theology , but this is the Anglican forum.

Mary