If they baptize using the trinitarian formula, they are Christian. If they do not baptize, how on earth can they claim to be Christian - since they directly and willingly disobey Christ?
“He who believes, and is baptized, will be saved.”
“Lord, did we not eat and drink with you”?
“Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you have no life in you.”
“I tell you I do not know you. Depart from me, evildoers!”
Basic Christianity is summed up in the creeds. Most protestants believe what’s in the creeds. That plus valid baptism is what makes one a Christian.
Yes this is why Mormons and jw’s aren’t Christians.
So what do you make of Jesus requirement of being born by water and the Spirit? See John 3:5.
See also 3:22 where Jesus and his disciples baptize others. Why would he do that if it was not necessary?
Baptism is not works but it is the work of God, a grace of God.
Do not be quick to dismiss works. Without works faith is dead and without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Read up on the epistle of James.
I would like to add that Catholics do not believe we are saved by works. We are saved by the Grace of God but we have to cooperate with his grace.
Salvation is a process and not a one time event.
I suppose such a view deserves a Chick tract as the other extreme.
I think what you experienced in the Australian Anglican Church is pretty typical of evangelical or low church Anglicanism. In that, they accept baptism of infants as a sign of the covenant but not necessarily believing in baptismal regeneration. There would need to be faith and conversion later in life for someone to truly call themselves a Christian.
At this point, the Australian Diocese of Sydney is pretty much what would have happened to the Church of England had the Puritans not been kicked out in the 1600s.
In the 1800s, Charles Sumner, the evangelical Bishop of Winchester, wrote in reference to whether someone was a Christian that “I must look, notwithstanding his baptism, for the Scriptural evidence of his being a child of God.”
To elaborate from Sarcelle,
The protestant view is that salvation is more of a one time event and should thus be seen as separate from sanctification which is the process of becoming holier. They believe once you are saved then you are go into the process of sanctification.
I found this view highly contentious from general interactions with evangelicals and they will usually struggle with the response and try to justify belief also includes actions that follow up from it, rather than just belief itself without the action or some would continue to believe in the one time event, depending on the denomination.
So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. (Philippians 2.12-13)
We work but it is God that works through us, this means that we are to take up our cross daily and follow the example of Christ in assenting to the Will of the Father (Luke 9.23)
Yes, the diocese of sydney is low-church compared to most other states in australia and I would think that they see baptism as an initiation into the Church rather than baptismal regeneration. In some churches, they have the sacrament of confirmation as a teenager, but I am unsure if the diocese of sydney practices it.
To clarify, we’re talking about justification and sanctification. Both are part of salvation. This is the Protestant view, but sometimes the terminology of justification and salvation get used interchangeably, which causes some misunderstanding.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.