From the Church Society, here is the full article.
Snippet:
Three main views have been held. The first is the view that the sign always conveys the gift, automatically, by itself, ex opere operato, so that all those who receive the sign willy-nilly also receive the thing signified.
The second is the view (at the opposite extreme) that the sign effects precisely nothing. It signifies the gift visibly, but in no sense or circumstance conveys it. It is a bare token or symbol, and that is all. Neither of these is the evangelical doctrine of baptism.
The third and evangelical view is that the sign not only signifies the gift, but seals or pledges it, and pledges it in such a way as to convey not indeed the gift itself, but a title to the gift – the baptized person receiving the gift (thus pledged to him) by faith, which may be before, during or after the administration of the sacrament.
Turning to the Articles, we find their teaching consistent with the rejection of the ex opere operato view of baptism, namely their insistence that the efficacy of the sacraments is dependent on worthy reception. At the end of Article twenty-five there is the general statement that ‘in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation…’ Similarly, in Article twenty-seven, it is ‘they that receive baptism rightly’ who are grafted into the Church, and to whom God’s promises are visibly signed and sealed.
[...]
If we ask what is meant by a ‘right’ or ‘worthy’ reception, Article twenty-eight explains ‘insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ…’ A right and worthy reception of the sacraments is a believing reception; without faith the sacraments have no wholesome operation or effect; rather the reverse.
The Catechism similarly lays emphasis on the necessary conditions required of candidates for baptism, and other statements in the Cathechism which may be thought to support the ex opere operato view must be understood in the light of these conditions.
The benefits of baptism are not bestowed unconditionally, they are appropriated by faith. Unworthy reception brings not blessing but judgment.
Hello Samuel.
Looking at Rev. Stott’s comments there is much I can agree with. The problem is, though, that the BCP does say that the benefits of Baptism are undoubtedly received by the child in Baptism.
BCP:
I CERTIFY you, that in this case all is well done, and according unto due order, concerning the baptizing of this Child; who being born in original sin, and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of Regeneration in Baptism, received into the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life: for our Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny his grace and mercy unto such Infants, but most lovingly doth call them unto him, as the holy Gospel doth witness to our comfort on this wise.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/Baptism_1559.htm
And that no man shall think that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their Confirmation; he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God’s word, that children being baptized, have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/Confirmation_1559.htm
Rev. Stott says:
“The benefits of baptism are not bestowed unconditionally, they are appropriated by faith. Unworthy reception brings not blessing but judgment.”
This is certainly true. The issue for Baptized children, though, is that the condition of a consciense appropriation of the benefits of Baptism by faith does not apply till they are capable of doing so (though their capability of doing so is certainly much younger than the common age of confirmation–of course, a conscious saving faith is often a gradual organic process in the life a Covenant child who is faithfully raised and nurtured in the Christian faith and not a one time “conversion experience”).
The grace of Baptism is undoubtedly received by all worthy recepients–and the BCP makes clear that all young children are worthy recepients (while the same is not the case for those who are older)–and thus says “it is certain by God’s Word” that all Baptized children are “undoubtedly saved.”
Thus the “charitable assumption” in Baptism is not regarding whether a young child received the grace or not–but in whether they will grow up into the grace they have received and whether they will continue therein to the end. And the Homilies (as the BCP, Articles, and Catechism) speaks to this point and the danger of falling from the grace received.
Anglican Homily of Justification (cited in the 39 Articles for the expounding of the Articles’ teaching on justification):
“…we must trust only in God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our high priest and Savior Christ Jesus, the son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God’s grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again.”
“Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly after we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbors. Much less is it our office, after that we be once made Christ’s members, to live contrary to the same, making our selves members of the devil”
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom03_mod.htm
I want to include a response on another forum by a Rev. Phil to the psuedo-high views of Baptism and the “Baptismal Covenant” of tolerance held by many liberals in the ECUSA and CofE, etc (of course, many liberals here in America–particularly in the largely heretical mainline Presbyterian Church USA–have in contrast explicitly low views of Baptism):
“The problem with the Rev. Jane and her fellow travelers in TEC is what I believe an essentially magical, unbiblical, and unworkable view of baptism specifically and the sacraments in general. The sacraments of baptism and holy communion are MEANS of grace and not ENDS. Baptism specifically is a means of communicating death of the old self, the old way of living; and new life in Christ. It is a sufficient sign of belonging to Christ. However, what these baptismal covenanters fail to acknowledge is that the sacraments have a negative side as well as positive side. If we partake in the Holy Eucharist unworthily we eat and drink damnation to ourselves. The body and blood of Christ testifies against us and this is why so many are sick and dying in our communion. If we do not live out our baptism faithfully by putting to death our “unruly members” baptism also speaks against us. Our baptism “says” we are Christian unless we prove otherwise and contradict this grace by disobedient living. Once washed in the waters of baptism it is important to avoid wallowing in the mud and muck of this world. This is the kind of “theology” that shows how far we have fallen into decadence.”
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Yes, I’m pretty much with you on this, William, especially on: “Thus the “charitable assumption” in Baptism is not regarding whether a young child received the grace or not–but in whether they will grow up into the grace they have received and whether they will continue therein to the end. And the Homilies (as the BCP, Articles, and Catechism) speaks to this point and the danger of falling from the grace received.”
While I endorsed Stott’s statement on Baptism, it doesn’t mean I didn’t have a few problems with it, and you’ve done a good job at pointing them out.
As far as the “essentially magical, unbiblical, and unworkable view of [...] the sacraments in general”, which is held by many liberals and Roman Catholics, that you mention… I think Packer has correctly pointed out that this way of thinking is the result of stripping the sacraments from the Covenantal context. If one does not understand the sacraments in relation to their function within the covenant, they quickly become “magical” rites performed by priests (in the pagan sense of the word) themselves imbued with magic powers. Basically a (neo)pagan reinterpretation of the christian religion (which is what I think Roman Catholicism is).
i didn´t know that was what Packer said.. it´s my own analysis of what has happened. The Anglican reformers would have understood their baptism service in the light of reformed (frequently used to mean what we now call Calvinist and Zwinglian) teaching on baptism as covenant sign. This is explains how 1662 can speak about the regeneration of the infant in baptism. However, when you strip away the covenant argument of Zwingli/Calvin (who on this sacrament at least were in basic agreement) you are left with the very strong language (which Calvin too will use of baptised infants) without a biblical context for it, which leads to baptismal regeneration in the sense that baptism causes regeneration (which is why I wince when I hear high church Calvinists and evangelical episcopalians (in the USA) talking about “baptismal efficacy” with almost a RC sense: that was not Calvin´s point) . I suspect that the same thing happened in the early church too, but that is a complete guess.
Hello James,
The Anglican Formularies (Articles/Homilies and BCP) do teach the Augustinian teaching on the promise of Baptism–namely, the certain receiving of the remission of sins in Baptism for the infant (this is also the teaching of Luther, and all the Church for 1500 years).
The problem, though, with the term “baptismal regeneration” is the different meanings which regeneration has come to mean. In Reformed circles at present, it is often applied exclusively to conversion and the gift of faith–i.e. the inward change of nature (or, the moment of transformation of the heart, mind, and will), etc–while Calvin and some other Reformers often used the term “regeneration” as synonomous with repentance.
But the “regeneration” which the BCP, and the Historic Church affirms to occur in infant Baptism, is not the same as that described above(though this “internal” aspect of regeneration (i.e. conversion and the gift of a faith) must follow in the life of a Baptized infant as he/she matures).
In the BCP–the “regeneration” of Baptism for the infant is summed up particularly in the chief benefit of entering Christ’s Covenanting Blood–that is, the remission of sins (as the Creed also teaches “we acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins”):
“We call upon thee for this Infant, that he, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration.”
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/Baptism_1559.htm
[And as noted above the teaching of the BCP affirms that "it is certain by God's Word" that the Baptized child is "undoubtedly saved"--and thus has undoubtedly received the "remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration" in Baptism.]
Thus, the certain regeneration of Baptism applies particularly to the “external” (or, forensic) condition or state of the infant (i.e. sins no longer imputed/imputed as righteous), rather than the “internal” condition (i.e. of the heart, mind, and will)–which must later be brought consciously under the transforming/”regenerating” power of Holy Spirit as the child matures–as with all other “born-again” believers.
God Bless,
William Scott
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
“Thus, the certain regeneration of Baptism applies particularly to the “external” (or, forensic) condition or state of the infant (i.e. sins no longer imputed/imputed as righteous), rather than the “internal” condition (i.e. of the heart, mind, and will)–which must later be brought consciously under the transforming/”regenerating” power of Holy Spirit as the child matures–as with all other “born-again” believers.”
Isn’t that what James is saying? Imputation/forensic categories in the Bible don’t appear out of an abyss, but are rooted in the legal terminology of the covenant(s)…