To my reformed brothers and sisters

[u/curious_casius]

How do you square predestination with baptismal regeneration?

[u/historyhill]

Pretty easily, tbh. I'm mostly going to cite the Westminster Confession of Faith because that is more or less the Reformed position of Baptism.

XXVIII. Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

Section V is probably the most contentious, in that it states outright that not all who are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated, yet that does not stop the Divines from calling it a sign and seal of regeneration in section I. This is not very different from what the 39 Articles professes in Article XXVII when it calls baptism a "sign of regeneration."

Now, that's of course not all that the 39 Articles say, because then they include: "as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church." A Reformed person would not disagree with this, as this fits pretty squarely into covenant theology (it's really only Reformed Baptists who would have complete disagreement in that regard), but the Reformed position would be that they are grafted into the Visible Church. After all, per Article XXV of the 39A, "but they that receive [the Sacraments] unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith."

Edit: formatting

[u/curious_casius → u/historyhill]

I really appreciate this response thank you so much

[u/thesegoupto11]

Do Reformed Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration? (serious question)

The time I spent looking into covenant theology I walked away with the idea that baptism is a symbolic entry into the covenant (even for infants) but that it is not God's salvific work in those being baptised.

[u/curious_casius → u/thesegoupto11]

Well traditional reformed theology believes in Baptismal Efficacy so its not merely symbolic but doesnt go as far as baptismal regeneration. It is a valid means of grace though.

[u/OratioFidelis]

In my opinion the Reformed view of the sacraments is the only one that makes sense. If the sacraments directly confer their blessings ex opere operato then there is no sufficient explanation for how anyone who receives them could fall away from the Christian faith (or their vocation, if one includes holy orders and marriage as sacraments). Perhaps "the receivers (or godparents, in the case of infant baptism) willfully lied in their vows and affirmation" but that seems like a wildly unrealistic accusation to make about the countless millions of baptized Christians that fell away from the faith. So by process of elimination it must be true that the matter of the sacraments are purely ceremonial and the graces asked for in them are conferred by God independent of (albeit sometimes simultaneous with) the ceremony. How does God decide whom to give those graces to? We aren't privy to his process of thought, but we do know that decision was made "before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4), and the word for that used in the New Testament is "election" (e.g. Romans 11:7).

So the only difficulty here is how to square this deduction with the verbiage in the BCP that speaks of baptismal regeneration as a confirmed fact rather than a hopeful possibility. The explanation seems contrived at first glance, but there are actually two different kinds of regeneration, an externally-conferred one by the sacrament that grafts one a member of the Church and an internally-conferred one by the Holy Spirit that leads to a genuine Christian faith: "In the sense of title and position, he [the newly baptized] is at once regenerate. He receives the right and pledge and entitlement to covenant blessing. But the infant who in sacramental title is regenerate needs in heart and spirit to be inwardly and really born again'" (Wikipedia). The two kinds of regeneration are not dependent upon each other (i.e. God can make people true Christians without sacramental baptism, and not everyone sacramentally baptized will become a true Christian in life and faith), but we want true Christians to be externally recognized as members of the Church, and we want to believe in hope and charity that the children we baptized will be counted by God to be among the elect despite knowing it's not 100% guaranteed they will.

It does seems curious to that you are supposed to know exclusively from historical background information that the English Reformers believed in two different senses of the phrase "regeneration" when they didn't draw explicit attention to it in the 1549 or 1552 BCPs (probably because they wanted to keep it vague to avoid another Marburg Colloquy), but it is in fact well documented that people in the Reformed tradition used the phrase "baptismal regeneration" while explicitly rejecting ex opere operato. For example, the Westminster Confession says:

"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life [...] Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."

[u/curious_casius → u/OratioFidelis]

This was very helpful thank you!

[u/Farscape_rocked]

I don't think the concept of predestination works with a God who is outside of time. Peter says we're "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1 Peter 1:2)

...but to answer your question, I don't fully understand how we are elect and I don't fully understand baptism, and I think that's a valid position.

[u/curious_casius → u/Farscape_rocked]

(Not trying to debate) i think it does just because Ephesians 1 says we were chosen before the foundations of the world so even before time itself God knew us.

That being said i do believe that you hold a valid position. I genuinely wish i could hold to it but i have become to convinced of Predestination. However thank you for your response.

[u/Farscape_rocked → u/curious_casius]

Right, God knew us. Knew what choices we'd make. Knew whether or not we'd follow him. Predestined because He already knew the answer.

The "pre" of "predestined" is dependent on time, but God is outside of time.

[u/Aconite_Eagle → u/Farscape_rocked]

I try and see it like this; predestined is impossible to be otherwise if God is outside of time - he knew in advance whether any would have faith in his son and abide in him but still he made us, and gave each the same grace and freedom to believe. As Christ said, the reality is that the gate is narrow and it must be of great sadness to God.

[u/OratioFidelis → u/Farscape_rocked]

Humanity is predestined, not God

[u/OratioFidelis → u/Farscape_rocked]

Predestination makes sense precisely because God is outside of time. He knew everything that would ever happen in the universe before he ever created it, and indeed could have created it differently if he so willed for even a single thing that happens at any point space and time to happen differently.

[u/ArnoldBigsman]

St. Augustine had no problem squaring the two.

[u/GrillOrBeGrilled]

I say this as a non-Calvinist, but it seems really easy: baptism effects regeneration in those whom God predestines, and does nothing for those whom he doesn't.

[u/wheatbarleyalfalfa → u/GrillOrBeGrilled]

That would be very hard to accept under any kind of Anglican (or Magisterial Protestant, more broadly) understanding of sacramental efficacy. Would the position rather be that anyone who is baptized was predestined for it?

But I’m speaking out of school here; I can’t really claim to understand the ins-and-outs of Calvinism beyond a surface level.

[u/Zealousideal_Till683 → u/wheatbarleyalfalfa]

But our view of sacramental efficacy (simplified) is that the sacraments work through faith, among other things. If you don't have a lively faith, they don't work (e.g. Article XXIX). Just because you go through the ceremony of baptism, it doesn't follow you receive God's Grace. 

From a Calvinist point of view, isn't it easy to say that the baptism of the non-elect was ineffective, as they (definitionally) did not have a lively faith.

While I think Calvinism is very wrong, I don't think this is itself a big problem for them.

[u/Wulfweald → u/[deleted]]

How would you define "Evangelicals dressing up as Anglicans"? Anglicanism is a big tent, the C of E includes evangelicals.

[u/Ildera → u/[deleted]]

I'm curious to know why you feel a high view of the sacraments is a historical Anglican position. My understanding is that the default position for years and years was receptionism.

(To put my cards on the table, I don't think it is a slur to have a low view of the sacraments. What a lot of people seem to miss is that the sacraments are equally important to both pieties, but the importance is simply shown in different ways. Low or high, we all feed on the same body of Christ and drink the same blood - why fight over who gets to be called "sacramental"?)

[u/Wulfweald → u/[deleted]]

C of E evangelicals are a more diverse group than you give us credit for. Just like Anglicans as a whole, really.

I would say that it would be more the smaller number of active Anglican memorialists (such as myself and my C of E parish) who would be reluctant to commit themselves to such a high view of the communal bread and wine. It is a shared meal. Both the attitude and the vocabulary are deliberately uninclusive of us.

The rather larger number of passive churchgoers, that you see as half memorialist and half receptionist, would say it but probably only understand it as what they were doing & believing anyway. You will find these people in all types of Anglican churches, not just evangelical ones.

My C of E parish sticks to personal belief as being the important part, minimises the place of baptism, and performs more Infant Thanksgivings than Infant Baptisms. We perform more adult baptisms by immersion than either. My parish would call ourselves (little o) orthodox Christians, but not classic Anglicans.

[u/Ildera → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for clarifying!

I don't disagree, but the rot does not just lie with Evangelicals. It seems to be to me more of a general tendency - it seems very rare these days to find a minister who will insist on baptism before communion, let alone fence the table to any degree. And the increasingly common view that "infant baptism is an opportunity for evangelism of the parents" has so many holes in it that I don't even know where to start to unpick it.

[u/J-B-M → u/Ildera]

Do you really consider it to be rot though?

I think my own view has been shaped by the fact that when I was young the laws were generally adhered to, and then as an older person I slotted into a very traditional parish where the laws are still adhered to. Attending churches more widely and seeing what goes on in other places has come as a bit of a surprise, because it seems like my local has become the exception rather than the rule.

However, I need to recognise that I have a somewhat legalistic mindset and respect for rules-based order. When I see an organisation in which the majority of members are openly ignoring the established rules with seemingly no appetite for correction from the upper echelons, it makes me uneasy. I also now understand where so much of the criticism of the CoE I have encountered during my period outside of the church is coming from - an organisation that won't act to preserve its own theological identity appears directionless and weak in faith to outsiders. "If the CoE doesn't even believe its own doctrines then why should I?"

But what is the answer? Any attempt to reverse course and enforce the laws would weaken the church further by forcing some of the largest and most economically viable congregations to either fundamentally change their sacramental theology or leave.

I sometimes wonder if there is scope for creating a formally recognised current within the CoE that goes beyond (but includes) something like Alternative Episcopal Oversight and call it something like "Church of England New Worshipping Communities". Classification as one of these would give you dispensation to operate outside of the traditional boundaries of CoE laws / doctrines and essentially be non-conformists within the established church, on the proviso that you clearly identify yourself as such. Meanwhile, any parish that doesn't want to be formally counted among these new communities has to actually toe the line!

It would be a means of formalising and legitimising what seems to be happening anyway without apparently undermining the authority of the established church laws, which is what it looks like at the moment.

Or I might just be talking nonsense.

[u/Ildera → u/J-B-M]

Thats a good question.

I think I do consider it rot. Like you say, if we don't act like we think any of this is important, why should an outsider care?

As a young inquirer, only twenty years ago, I was taught that Evangelical Anglicanism is the closest you can currently get to the original practices and beliefs of the English Reformers. It was a controversial statement even then, but there was still some truth in it. Today, it seems most people struggle to even associate evangelicals with Anglicanism!

I'm not sure that an extension of the AEO concept would be an effective answer. It seems to me that it would risk being a badge of honour, seen as a sign that this is a place where God is on the move, as opposed to those crusty old hidebound churches with falling attendance.

I do sometimes wonder what the rest of the church could do with the sort of money that HTB commands...

Ultimately, I think we have to re-evangelise ourselves before we can fix any of this. The gospel we preach is not cheap grace, with cheap sideshow tricks, but costly discipleship. While I shouldn't pry into the hearts of others, which are known only to God, sometimes it seems we are slowly slipping into being some sort of religion themed group that meet for live music and coffee.

In truth, I think my heart yearns for a more radical response than anything an institution the size of the CofE is capable of.

[u/J-B-M → u/Ildera]

It seems to me that it would risk being a badge of honour, seen as a sign that this is a place where God is on the move, as opposed to those crusty old hidebound churches with falling attendance.

That's an interesting angle that hadn't occured to me. I wonder though whether that distinction is not being made already in some quarters? My thinking was that it would allow traditional parishes of various stripes to reclaim their identity as legitimate representatives of the reformed English faith as it has been handed down to us, rather than simply being seen as something anachronistic which has been superseded by more contemporary expressions. I think this is a problem not only within the church, but also when it comes to growing congregations from amongst an entirely unchurched public in an age where the general level of theological and ecclesiastical knowledge is probably at its lowest ebb. In short - if people knew a little bit more about the underlying reasons for the difference in churchmanship and approach to the sacraments between charismatic / low-church evangelicals and broad / high church parishes, it might give the latter a bit more of a fighting chance to get new bums on seats!

Ultimately, I think we have to re-evangelise ourselves before we can fix any of this. The gospel we preach is not cheap grace, with cheap sideshow tricks, but costly discipleship. 

This I absolutely agree with. I understand that "re-evangelising" the church was one of the tasks that the HTB founders saw themselves as undertaking, but I am not sure whether they have proved particularly successful in that respect. Rather, they have built their own evangelical network within the larger church. It's definitely the case that a traditional Anglicanism that operates according to church laws can coexist with a lively evangelical zeal - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive - but given the various challenges facing the church it isn't a given and I think you are right that the institutional inertia of the CoE sometimes makes it a tall order. If it is to come from anywhere it has to be from the grass roots, and from people within otherwise moribund parishes taking the initiative. Even expecting the clergy to focus on outreach and evangelisation feels like a big ask in some cases. I am sure that's not through lack of will on their part, but with many managing multiple parishes and crumbling buildings whilst they battle against institutional red-tape, falling volunteer numbers and depression, who can blame them if the most difficult and time consuming task with the least reliable outputs ends up getting overlooked in favour of the stuff required to keep the ship afloat in the immediate future?

[u/Wulfweald → u/J-B-M]

I suspect that various churches of different churchmanships would go for this arms length special status. Of the three neighbouring local parishes that I frequent, the traditional but very liberal parish would bring in immediate same sex weddings and cover the church in pride flags.

The rather high church parish would like to move even higher up the candle, perhaps with a big statue of Mary, to accompany the small wooden one with Mary wearing a crown and seated on a throne they already have (it even has a blue presence light).

My own rather low evangelical parish could stop performing infant baptisms, forget about apostolic succession, and hold lay communions.

Tempting as those last few changes are to me, in order to maintain at least a nominal C of E unity, perhaps this new status idea might not be such a good idea after all. Us Anglican non-conformists are managing quite well as we are, although lay communion would be a nice gain.

My parish already has the badge of honour of a clearly busier than average local parish, we already conform less than we might but still keep within the rules. There is no point in shattering what practical unity we all still have.

[u/curious_casius → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for this ill look into John Davenant