Michael Wrenn
New Member
I don't know of any denomination that is able to contain as many different -- and diametrically opposite -- points of view as Anglicanism can. Actually, that's one thing that drew me to it years ago since my own views are quite diverse.
Consider the following excerpt form an article on baptismal regeneration:
"Differing Anglican attitudes:
In his summary of the situation from 1810 onwards, Nockles detects at least seven different strands of thought on the subject:
1. The Extreme High church view: This insisted that the spiritual effects of baptism were inseparable from it even to the point of an opus operatum or purely mechanical understanding of the rite and this was the only acceptable doctrine of the Church of England.(pp. 230,232,233)
2. The moderate HighChurch: While holding a high view of Baptismal Regeneration themselves, they recognised diversity of opinion must arise but held that the Liturgy provided a corrective.(p. 235)
3. Calvinist Evangelicals: These accepted a rigorous doctrine of predestination, and with it that of antecedent grace, and therefore denied baptismal regeneration outright as unscriptural.(p. 229)
4. The majority of Evangelicals: For them baptism was little more than initiation into the visible Church.(p. 229)
5. Some of the former: The "little more" included the recognition of baptism at least as a sign of regeneration as stated by Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles(p. 229)
6. The moderate Evangelicals: These, and J.B. Sumner (Archb of Canterbury 1848-62) was one, accepted what was, from the High church perspective, a modified version of the doctrine in which the spiritual effects are not inseparably tied to the rite. While holding this position, Sumner was not prepared to label Gorham's Calvinistic arguments heretical and insisted that Elizabethan divines (theologians) had allowed that the grace of spiritual regeneration could be separated from the sacrament of Baptism.(p. 230)
7. A Protestant position: Formulated in the first instance by James Mozley as he moved away from Tractarianism and investigated the opinions of early generations of highchurch theologians on baptismal regeneration as Sumner had done. He discovered "statements made sometimes, which, if put into easy English and placed before our [High church] friends, would be set down as heresy, but which occur in undoubtedly orthodox authorities"(quoted Nockles, p. 234)"
Consider the following excerpt form an article on baptismal regeneration:
"Differing Anglican attitudes:
In his summary of the situation from 1810 onwards, Nockles detects at least seven different strands of thought on the subject:
1. The Extreme High church view: This insisted that the spiritual effects of baptism were inseparable from it even to the point of an opus operatum or purely mechanical understanding of the rite and this was the only acceptable doctrine of the Church of England.(pp. 230,232,233)
2. The moderate HighChurch: While holding a high view of Baptismal Regeneration themselves, they recognised diversity of opinion must arise but held that the Liturgy provided a corrective.(p. 235)
3. Calvinist Evangelicals: These accepted a rigorous doctrine of predestination, and with it that of antecedent grace, and therefore denied baptismal regeneration outright as unscriptural.(p. 229)
4. The majority of Evangelicals: For them baptism was little more than initiation into the visible Church.(p. 229)
5. Some of the former: The "little more" included the recognition of baptism at least as a sign of regeneration as stated by Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles(p. 229)
6. The moderate Evangelicals: These, and J.B. Sumner (Archb of Canterbury 1848-62) was one, accepted what was, from the High church perspective, a modified version of the doctrine in which the spiritual effects are not inseparably tied to the rite. While holding this position, Sumner was not prepared to label Gorham's Calvinistic arguments heretical and insisted that Elizabethan divines (theologians) had allowed that the grace of spiritual regeneration could be separated from the sacrament of Baptism.(p. 230)
7. A Protestant position: Formulated in the first instance by James Mozley as he moved away from Tractarianism and investigated the opinions of early generations of highchurch theologians on baptismal regeneration as Sumner had done. He discovered "statements made sometimes, which, if put into easy English and placed before our [High church] friends, would be set down as heresy, but which occur in undoubtedly orthodox authorities"(quoted Nockles, p. 234)"
