Gradually he has declared himself to be one with Rome, Anglo-Catholicism, Campbellism, and Federal Visionism. That alliance in thought does not immediately disqualify his assertions on the topic we are discussing, since not everything from Rome, etc, is instantly to be dismissed as error (we share creedal conviction but differ in other major areas of understanding, particularly with regard to Justification). But the association is clarifying.

I honestly wonder at Roger’s self-appellation as Reformed when his views square with Newman, Pusey, and all the leaders of the Tractarian movement that have so misled the Anglican Communion in the realm of soteriology.

I do not doubt the salvation of many who denominate themselves as Catholic Anglicans and I admire many proponents of that position for their insights and piety, but I can only aver, as is true of us all who have been touched by grace that our hearts are in a better place than our heads.

But I must in all candor, even if Roger disclaims any sympathy with Anglo-Catholicism, declare that I believe Anglo-Catholicism, as a set of principles, to be at variance with authentic Anglicanism and a dangerously subtle mimicry of true Christianity in its beliefs and vocabulary.

If people are unaware of the debates prosecuted within our Communion in the 19th century as a result of the rise of Tractarianism they can easily be deceived by its claims. Again, the movement has attracted and nurtured many good and gifted Christian folk, but that is commendation of them and the Lord who indwells them, rather than the doctrines they promulgate. We are all in error somewhere, and if not fundamentally in doctrine, certainly in interior disposition toward the truths that we cherish. We are inadequate advocates of the One whom we serve and hardly appreciate the heavenly things we handle so cursorily, even at the best of times. Our minds must always be bowing before God. I think the Lord favors simple reverence over bookish orthodoxy.

Having begun I must be brief.

First, I see no relevance in Roger aligning Evangelical Anglicanism with Anabaptism. In fact, in the interests of being concise, I will jump ahead in my thoughts and pose these questions to Roger which he never seems to address. This approach will compromise my desire to write in an orderly and measured fashion, item by item, but here goes:

What “grace” is communicated in baptism? Even Newman, Pusey, and their colleagues are too muddled in their definitions of baptismal grace, too inconsistent, to be comprehended (see their writings on justification - truly mystifying and contradictory. Readers can only judge for themselves if they have the patience and opportunity).

Is it regeneration? What then is the status before God, forensically, of adults who believe and repent prior to the administration of the sacrament; are they in a sort of Catholic limbo until the water is applied to their persons, for they must, surely, be regenerate in order to exercise faith and express repentance?

Earlier on in this exchange of ideas via VirtueOnline Alan Richardson, a much admired Professor of Anglican theology and Christian apologist, was cited as an advocate, oddly, of baptismal justification, yet here are his words relevant to earnest seekers after God: “It was God who had prompted them in the first place to look for him; God is the author of man’s quest for God, as well as its goal. If you want to find God, if you are at all in earnest in your desire to know him, then take assurance that, to this extent at least, you have already found him and know him. Or rather, to speak more accurately, God has already found you, since it is he who has led you to desire him. No one wants to know God unless God has already put into his mind this desire, and hence no one who genuinely wants to know God is without real contact with him already. Pascal’s great saying is worth long and careful meditation when he makes the Lord say: ‘Comfort yourself; you would not seek me if you had not found me’” (Science, History and Faith, Oxford, 1950). After sufficient meditation I cannot deem this “real contact” to be anything less than conversion, given the state of man by nature and then the capacity “to know him” in a biblical sense. Where the will is converted what is the function of water?

And if believers are regenerate they are forgiven in their union with Christ. Only the justified may enjoy him. Justification emerges from predestination not the human performance of ritual intrinsically.

What of my quotations from Reformers, English, and the Continental leaders who mentored and supported them, which refute baptismal justification? And there are more that could be cited from these sources, e.g “Whitgift had said that the Reformers taught that sacraments did not contain grace, but only sealed grace” (W. Griffith Thomas).

They used sacramental language, that is, they employed interchangeably the name of the sign and the thing, teaching that while all received blessing sacramentally, not all received it really. They thus distinguished between sacramental and spiritual regeneration (WGT). The esteemed Bishop Beveridge, respected by High churchmen, would agree with this observation in his reference to the “unregenerate baptized”.

Is the grace forgiveness? Well, that is a huge blessing as a result of divine grace, but Justification has nothing to do with the impartation of an influence or virtue (that is sanctification). Justification is declaratory - the Lord telling us we are acquitted of guilt before him. That proceeds from faith and repentance, the appropriation of the atoning work of Christ. With adults we pay deference to a credible confession of faith.

Too hold to sacramental justification over baptized babies when it is all too clear that all those baptized are not not regenerate or justified is an excessive extension of charitable supposition. The promises to infants are addressed to those of believing parents in covenant with God and they are made prospectively - not to all and sundry who present their little ones at the font. We Reformed cannot agree with Wesley that folk move in and out of a regenerate/justified state, and then in again through an experience of (re)-conversion. All this is a denial of the steadfastness of God’s preservative grace towards his own. Anglo-Catholicism is a poor and dangerous substitute for the Gospel of Grace whose benefits are grasped essentially by faith.

Forgiveness resides in the absolutely sovereign attitude of God. Is the point made by sacramentalists to be perceived as, “God only issues the statement of a soul’s justification in a lavatational context?”. The Scriptures do not inculcate such rigidity. I do not disparage the sacrament nor minimalize its significance or proper necessity as a confirmation of both divine promises and human confidence in them, but baptismal justification is in contradiction of the whole tenor of Holy Scripture and all rational comprehension of it. Baptism is modestly mentioned in connection with salvation as compared with the absolute major emphasis on faith and its immediate effects.

When we interpret any statement of Scripture it is to be in regard to the analogy of faith - i.e. what does the Bible say as a whole?

The sacramentalist position of Roger is largely presented to us on the basis of one preposition that is open to varying interpretations, as is the case with “eis” which can be translated as for, unto, with reference to<.>, etc (Acts 2:38) A predetermined theology cannot monopolize this preposition. Our position must be deduced from a comparison of passages on Justification, and Evangelicals could just as well affirm, as we do, that baptism is with reference to forgiveness already received and is confirmatory of that fact, - not contributory to its donation.

My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or anyone in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received "renowned American scholar of New Testament Greek" (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).

What if I were to take my stand, for the sake of argument, as an Arian (denier of my Lord’s divinity) on the basis of Colossians 1:15 (Christ as ‘firstborn over all creation’)? Roger would say, quite rightly, that I should consult other texts relevant to Christ’s nature and status. “Firstborn” in this setting requires the understanding that it means “supreme”, but there it is, as Roger would point out, plain and unavoidable in print, the inference that Christ is a creature with primacy over the rest of creation. ‘The End” of discussion as Roger would say, or even similarly with respect to the Genesis account, the fundamentalist asseveration that creation was strictly a six-day process, which the church fathers could handle otherwise as usage of figurative language, so far as I can see (cf Augustine). Sometimes the way we handle single texts can create a blockage, a fixation that fails to enable us to expand in our grasp of theology and its layered richness.

I know that those in favor of baptismal justification fancy that other texts in addition to Acts 2:38 propound their view but there perspective is not necessarily derived from these passages, and due to the super-abundance of references to the efficiency of faith as an instrument of salvation and the relative paucity of references to baptism, should not be.

I feel that I cannot continue for too long. There are other details to render, theologically and historically, concerning our Anglican heritage (which yields infinite wealth concerning the dimensions of divine grace) and the subject of the sacraments. There are also other fields one would desire to explore more profitably than facing an impasse over baptism.

It is such a pity, as others have observed in a book title on the topic before us, that baptism is “The Water that Divides”. But it is the Spirit that unites, and he certainly does unite all believers through his baptism, and he can overrule and heal our disagreements over biblical interpretation, which indicates that his operations are superior to sacramental operations and intellectual observations. The grace of God is greater than we all know in our puny struggles for faith and the formation of our understanding.

The Rev. Roger Salter is an ordained Church of England minister where he had parishes in the dioceses of Bristol and Portsmouth before coming to Birmingham, Alabama to serve as Rector of St. Matthew's Anglican Church