Anglicanism and Lutheranism

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Traditionalist, Dec 20, 2018.

  1. Traditionalist

    Traditionalist New Member

    Likes Received:
    United States
    Why should I choose being Anglican over being a Confessional Lutheran? After all they are more doctrinally unified i.e. The Book of Concord. Another question is that why Anglicanism is so doctrinally broad? For example, Anglo-Catholics versus Reformed Anglicans.
  2. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Likes Received:
    High-Church Laudian
    I could not be Lutheran (though I do respect them) due to their theology, which is monergistic. I am a synergist, and I believe in conditional election (as do Arminians, most Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox).

    Aside from this, Lutheran soteriological theology is not logical or consistent, something which their theologians often admit is the case.: "Calvinism and Arminianism, two logically consistent, but un-Biblical systems (in their opinion), and Lutheranism, the logically inconsistent yet Biblical system.

    This blog posting covers the subject fairly well:

    When confronted with the fact that their system is not logical (while Calvinists and Arminians believe that their systems are), Lutherans will say something to the effect, "it may not be logical, but it is what Scripture teaches."

    Again, it is my rejection of monergism that would prevent me from becoming Lutheran (or Calvinist).

    Lutheranism occupies what is, in essence, a half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism. I have a lot of respect for Lutherans I know; I just can't accept their theology on many issues.

    The reason that Anglicanism is so broad theologically is, in my opinion, due to the fact that the desire for a national church in England resulted in it being as accommodating as possible to different persons. No single party was allowed to take over the Church of England completely and compromise was the usual way of dealing with differences. Only those who were insistent about certain issues eventually left, either going to Rome, or joining another sect such as the Puritans, Methodists, etc.
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2018
    Shane R likes this.
  3. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Likes Received:
    They are more unified, but they're unified around a core of ideas which contains at least two essential, fundamental mistakes which have prevented them from having the fullness of the Church.

    1. Liturgy: they don't have a liturgy (not any longer). They used to have one unified liturgy during the 16th century, the German Mass of Martin Luther and the great Lutheran doctors. However because of a key error in theology, they have let the liturgy be dictated by the princes, and over time you resulted in a hundred different liturgies over the course of 17th and 18th centuries. Lutherans living in the 19th and 20th centuries have come to believe that there isn't a one liturgy, and there doesn't NEED to be a one liturgy.

    2. Episcopacy: they don't have one any longer (except for a few places).

    So you're talking about a "theologically unified" people whose churchmanship is run by guys in secular suits with weird titles like "president"; and with a haphazard worship that doesn't have to be a liturgy.

    Disobedience. Both camps of that divide stray from the doctrine as laid out in the Anglican tradition.

    Anglican doctrine is extremely clear and precise on whatever question may be asked: the sacraments, marriage, divorce, abortion, contraception, bishops, episcopacy, priesthood, the liturgy, Scripture, tradition, sanctification, justification, election, reprobation, baptism, regeneration, communion, real presence, and even on the accessory issues like architecture, and sacred music.

Share This Page