David Ould and Baptismal Confusion

By Fr. Jeffrey Steel Over at Standfirm, Revd David Ould is promoting some of the most non-Anglican and non-Catholic views of baptism that I have seen a "confessing" Anglican make. Most importantly, it is completely out of accord with Prayer Book theology and fails the test of Anglican lex orandi lex credendi. The ignorance of Anglicans not realizing that we hold and teach baptismal regeneration is a bit odd to say the least. What is the real problem that brings about the confusion? The problem that Revd Ould is facing is the result of a radical view of Luther’s doctrine of Justification by faith alone. Faith (by Luther) came to be viewed so much in terms of mental assent instead of loyalty, fidelity, troth, etc. that it ended up eclipsing sacramental efficacy and sacramental grace from the very means that God determined to communicate the efficacy of the passion of Christ to his Body. Actually, FAITH should be interpreted as covenant loyalty and not merely mental assent (to use 'Reformed language'), and thus the connection with baptism should become clear. The Bible doesn't really distinguish "faith" and "baptism" in the radical way that the Reformers tended to and that Revd Ould is suggesting. Baptism is implied to do the same thing that faith does. The reason for this is that baptism is a "sacrament," which in the Roman world meant a vow of loyalty upon entering the army. The sacrament commits a soldier to be loyal to the empire or emperor. Viewed this way, baptism is our vow or pledge of loyalty to Christ. Thus, it is not something ultimately distinct from faith. We are justified by faith and by baptism, because the two are simply the same thing. Honestly, I do not know why Revd Ould is not a Baptist or at least a Presbyterian. One thing is for certain, it is not the traditional Anglican position and to say so is a farce. The problem is that baptismal regeneration has been so distorted in its travel through the pages of Reformed writers that it is defined as something outside of the grace of Christ and magical. Well, nowhere does the Catholic Faith say anything remotely close to that yet that is indeed how people like Revd D. Ould speak about it as if it were the true position. I guess if you say something enough it becomes true! Does Revd Ould deny the indelible mark of baptism? Paul says that ALL who have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. Baptism is the sacrament of faith and the Church teaches that everyone must grow after baptism as it is only the beginning. Ordinarily, the Spirit is NOT given without baptism but accompanies baptism (Acts 2) and everyone who is baptised receives Christ's Spirit and the promise is offered to them freely as a result of grace. Can they reject it? Sure! See 1 Cor. 10:1 ff. Here is Justin Martyr Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61) He is only one example among the many throughout the Church. Revd Ould is on the fast track to Anabaptist ecclesiology. I only hope the readers over there simply don't confuse his rhetoric about 'rightly dividing the word of truth' to actually be a justified hermeneutic for his greatly lacking sacramental theology. He will claim he is exericising his sola scriptura but has any Reformed writer or Revd Ould himself answered for us why there are so many "solas" when they claim to believe in "sola" this or that?