Hi everyone I apologise in advance. I'm not much for introductions. My name is Tania and I hail from California. I'm just getting out of a Reformed Baptist background. Still struggling with limited atonement. It's been quite a looong journey. I'm not currently an Anglican, I came to this forum to learn more about the distinctions of Anglican and Lutheran beliefs and to learn more about church history. From what I'm seeing, both Lutheran's and your sect seem pretty respectful of one another. Anyway, nice to meet everyone!
Welcome.You will find lots of information here. The biggest thing we have that the Lutherans don't for the most part is true Apostolic Succession
Thank you for the welcome ☺️ Do all Anglicans believe in a Apostolic Succession? I know there are some that lean more Reformed in certain doctrines.
Generally, yes. But there is an ongoing conversation about whether Apostolic Succession is the esse of the Church (meaning it is the essence of the very life of the church), or bene esse (meaning something of benefit for the life of the church but not strictly speaking essential), and in some circles plene esse (meaning something necessary for the fullness of the life of the church). Anglo-catholics, and a number of high church types tend to lean to the 'esse' camp in my experience. The Anglo-Catholic writer Vernon Staley puts his perspective in none too subtle terms in his book "The Catholic Religion": While I am anglo-catholically (is that a word?) inclined, I depart from the party line on the issue of Apostolic Succession being the esse of the Church. Rather, I believe that it is bene esse and plene esse. I cannot find a clear demand in Scripture that all bishops and indeed all ministers must be ordained by the laying on of hands in the unbroken line of succession from the Apostles in order to have valid sacraments. Though there is ample scriptural evidence that this is the orthopraxis of the Apostolic church and highly regarded among the Church Fathers in order to distinguish between the True Church and schismatics and heretics and for good order. Since Anglicans believe "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" (Articles of Religion, Article VI), and since the power and efficacy of the sacraments flows from the word and authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit and not from any magic powers possessed by a cleric, I do not believe something as necessary as the sacraments can hinge on the pedigree of a priest. Them's fightin' words to some Anglicans I am sure, but it is my opinion.
Anglicanism, as a coherent body of divinity, does teach that, from its formularies and the historic divines. You may come across some who don't always abide by that foundation, and therefore profess/believe any number of things, but that's a different story more predicated on that individual person.
I don't think anyone would argue that you have to believe it to be saved. But as a practice and the function of the church we turn to scriptures, which you say does show how the churhc worked for the Apostles, and the church fathers and as you say they were high on it so it must mean that is how the church is supposed to work so that is how we should work as a church.
Welcome, Tania! Please feel free to spend some time perusing any of the past discussion threads that catch your interest, as well as any of the stuff in the documents section (not in the forum section) of this site. And by all means, ask any questions you like!