tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22102388.post3756985278617669970..comments2009-07-09T16:05:28.719+01:00adrian reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05025265319815553323noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22102388.post-65424825184061685892009-07-09T16:05:28.719+01:002009-07-09T16:05:28.719+01:00It was one of the reasons I decided I wasn&#39;t an Anglican 20 years ago. I just couldn&#39;t go through with ordination training promising to respect this. I am certain Cranmer did mean baptismal regeneration. I don&#39;t wholly blame him - he accomplished a huge amount given the circumstances he was working in, and BCP rescued the CofE for several hundred years. <br /><br />I have dear Anglican friends who deeply want to ignore this issue or treat it as an unimportant secondary. I respect their desire to fight for the heart of their communion. But to fight by pretending extremely poor foundational theology doesn&#39;t exist makes any victory phyrric at best. <br /><br />Its hard not to think that a theology of baptismal regeneration followed, rather than preceded, a legal requirement to do it. I can&#39;t but think that Anglican ministers were civilly required to do it and set about finding convoluted theological justification for something that they de facto had to believe if they wished to minister in the C of E. I think theology followed practice.Marcushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725283501097528603noreply@blogger.com