I havent posted on Ryles objections to High Church since 14 January (12 points are listed on 9 January and a 13th is derived on 11 January), as I have been focusing on some of the more complex issues, especially coming to an understanding of what Predestination means in the Anglican belief. Though what my posts have been rather long, they have also been somewhat impressionistic, not going into great depth but touching on historical points. When I get to predestination I intend to convey as nearly as I can exactly what Hooker believed, but for this post on Baptism I am still hewing to my personally held beliefs and experiences in a way. In fact, I dont have room to quote him without making this overly long. Ryle specifically says that a gross, opus operatum view of baptismal regeneration is not taught. This phrasing is first found in Duns Scotus, and later it was made heresy to deny it in the Council of Trent. Ex opere operato, applying to the Mass, is also used. Opus operantis, as we learn from Bp Jewel, is called by Innocent III the priest himself. From the moment I read Ryles objection I felt what I see here confirmed—that in the rejecting of opus operatum the Protestants were at one time all united—in an article on Baptismal Regeneration in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915: As indicated in the general articles on BAPTISM and SACRAMENTS, the doctrine ordinarily held by Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and also by Low-Church Episcopalians, differs from that of the Roman and Greek churches, and of High-Church Anglicans, in its rejection of the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of regeneration, and that the grace of regeneration is effectually conveyed through the administration of that rite wherever duly performed. The Restoration movement, which came from here in Kentucky as evinced by the first photo, placed a greater emphasis on Baptism. I have not read much about the debate, but at the time it drew considerable numbers away from the Presbyterians represented by Rice towards the Restoration which Campbell was effecting. Henry Clay himself must not have been very convinced, as he was not baptized until a very old man, and then out of a punchbowl at Ashland. I dont know much about what the Disciples of Christ believe—I sense there must be a great diversity there—but I do know what the more doctrinaire Church of Christ people believe, and though they deny it, its hard to see how their view isnt opus operatum. Pictured second is Beaver Dam Church of Christ, in the same neighborhood in which my Duvall grandparents live. While I can say that it is one of the Churches I most positively despise, things I learned there have been instrumental in forming my theology since. The Baptist churches in which I was raised had certainly gone far away from primitive baptist beliefs, for I heard both from the pulpit and in Sunday school, etc. the question of What if a person went forth at the Invitation one Sunday and was killed in a car accident that week before being baptized? They certainly werent teaching Calvinism or especially emphasizing Grace over Sacrament. (And I never did get a satisfactory answer to this until I heard a sermon at a Latin Rite Church that concerned the Feeneyites, who rejected the doctrine that a person can be a member of the Church not only in re [in reality] but also in voto [by volition]. A catechumen is considered a member of the Church in voto and so we should certainly also be able to say that a person about to be baptized is similarly a member.) Beaver Dam Church of Christ has in its vestibule a lot of tracts, and they attack every other Church, including, I suppose, other Churches of Christ that dont adhere to their strict interpretation (no instruments etc). It has been over a decade since I went there so my information may be outdated, but the point is that when I went there I saw a tract against the Baptists. On what ground did they attack them? That they didnt believe in Baptism. Not only do the Churches of Christ teach that Baptism itself is absolutely necessary for salvation, but they hold basically the same view that Hookers opponent Travers held: that until their restoration, and since the corruption of the Church, everyone was damned. In Travers case, it refers to the supposed corruption after the early period until the reformation, i.e., damnation for all Catholics; in the case of the Churches of Christ, which didnt properly separate from the Disciples until 1906 (Census Bureau), you can lump all the Protestants in with the hell-bound. In this Church of Christ—and anyone from Beaver Dam can supply examples—there even obtains the sort of thing that Constantine did, and of which Jewel cites Augustine as complaining about: the delaying of Baptism until near death, so that one can go to the grave with ones sins entirely washed away. Here I must tell an anecdote about my grandfather. The Beaver Dam Church of Christ is built on land my grandparents owned for a time, and Papa was in the habit of mowing property he no longer owned, he having been for most of his life possessed of boundless energy (even now hes pretty resilient!). The Church of Christ told him he couldnt mow their land because he wasnt a member: they would have to pay him. He refused to be paid and stopped mowing it. At first they were nice, but then they became more vehement in their proselytization. Finally Papa slammed the door in ones face saying, You Church of Christ think us Baptists and us Catholics are going to Hell in the same train car! Hooker disputed Travers mass damnation of Catholics and from there is a trend, which while it may not deny extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a whole, certainly does not give to any Sect a monopoly on Grace. From these things I have to say I reject opus operatum personally. We should note that Ryle says gross. We dont reject any Grace or effect of Baptism: Bp Jewels opponent in this debate tried to accuse us of denying the Sacrifice of the Cross. But as a lived Christian life, not putting this sort of emphasis on Baptism makes sense. When I was confirmed by Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori (it doesnt bother me at all that this would also horrify the Beaver Dam Church of Christ, who strictly apply 1 Timothy 2.12), there were also Baptisms that day, and she preached on the Baptism and Temptation of Christ, noting that Jesus was tempted after he was Baptism, as should we be. Baptism is the beginning of our Christian life, not a charm to get us into Heaven. *Caveat: Churches of Christ are autonomous bodies, and the views of this particular Congregation are not representative of all. Also, some Churches in the early Restoration movement still existing are called Church of Christ without being associated with the 20th Century movement.
Posted on: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:12:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015