How similar are Lutheranism and Anglicanism?

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

I've always thought Lutheranism and Anglicanism seemed very similar. What are the similarities and differences?

 

[gtsecc]

Very simillar.
In Europe, they have retained Apostolic succesion.
Both retain the best parts of the Roman Catholic Church, without its horrible music.

 

[CSMR]

The Anglican church will have some people that accept the lutheran confessions. A large part of the protestant section of the church (including "evangelicals") will be sympathetic to Luther and by extension lutheranism but sometimes without an accurate idea of the issues on which lutheranism makes its stand. The anglo-catholic and liberal sections of the church are opposed to lutheranism and do not accept justification by faith alone and its supporting doctrine.

 

[IowaLutheran]

Differences:

(1) Some Lutheran churches do not have apostolic succession. Those Lutheran churches that do have it generally do not believe it is "necessary" like Anglicans do, but have it because of tradition (European churches) or adopted it as a part of a full communion agreement (ELCA).
(2) I have seen where Anglicans refer to the 2 major and 5 minor sacraments; Lutherans just refer to the two, although we have the other 5, we do not view them as sacramental in nature.
(3) Lutherans have bishops, priests, and deacons, but generally consider them to be variations of one ordained office (some do not ordain deacons at all), and not a three-fold ministry as Anglicans do.
(4) Bishops confirm in Anglican churches, Lutheran pastors usually confirm.
(5) Lutherans place more emphasis on consistency in beliefs, Anglicans place more emphasis on consistency in worship.

Similarities:

They are set forth quite well in Called to Common Mission, the ELCA/ECUSA agreement:

http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullCommunion/episcopal/ccmresources/text.html

 

[Simon_Templar]

Very simillar.
In Europe, they have retained Apostolic succesion.
Both retain the best parts of the Roman Catholic Church, without its horrible music.

Huh?

The lutheran church has never had apostolic succesion as during the reformation and after, no bishops from the lines of succession joined the lutheran church. Thus the lutheran clergy was created without the benefit of bishops in the benefit of bishops from the lines of succession.

I don't see how they could retain something they never had in the first place?

That said.. the only major difference between luthernism and anglicanism is apostolic succession. In fact luther's ideas were very influential on many of the early voices in the "english reformation".

 

[IowaLutheran]

Huh?

The lutheran church has never had apostolic succesion as during the reformation and after, no bishops from the lines of succession joined the lutheran church. Thus the lutheran clergy was created without the benefit of bishops in the benefit of bishops from the lines of succession.

I don't see how they could retain something they never had in the first place?

In many areas of Europe, you are correct in that apostolic succession was lost at the time of the reformation, because some areas became Lutheran without a Catholic-to-Lutheran bishop available to ordain other bishops in succession. So, some local political leaders were made Lutheran bishops.

You are incorrect as to some Lutheran churches, however. The Churches of Sweden and Finland never lost apostolic succession. Catholic bishops became Lutheran bishops, who ordained other Lutheran bishops, on up to the present day, just like what happened in England following the English reformation.

The Lutheran churches of Estonia, Norway, Lithuania, and Iceland are in the process of re-establishing apostolic succession through the Porvoo Communion agreement with the Church of England.

 

[Simon_Templar]

You are incorrect as to some Lutheran churches, however. The Churches of Sweden and Finland never lost apostolic succession. Catholic bishops became Lutheran bishops, who ordained other Lutheran bishops, on up to the present day, just like what happened in England following the English reformation.

Interesting, I didn't know this.

 

[PaladinValer]

There are some differences:

1. Many Lutherans (though not all) lack a valid Apostolic Succession. As others have said however, some do, particularly those of Sweden and Finland, which were centers of Lutheranism then and now today as well. In addition, the ELCA and its parallels in other countries have regained or received Apostolic Succession though the Anglican Church. On the other hand, most Lutherans do not believe it to be a necessity. Anglicans, on the other hand, believe it to be a necessity.
2. Anglicans historically have believed in either theosis or arminianism, which means we must cooperate with God in terms of our salvation. Lutherans lack this belief.
3. Anglicans historically have accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Lutherans do not.
4. Anglicans historically have accepted all seven of the "Major Sacraments." Lutherans accept only Baptism and Holy Communion as truly worthy of the title "sacrament."
5. Anglicans accept Holy Tradition as authoritative in matters of faith, doctrine, and salvation, whereas Lutherans typically only hold onto those Holy Traditions that are at least implicitly referred to in Scripture. Anglicans also believe in Holy Reason, to which there is no Lutheran belief.

There are others, but these were on the top of my head at the moment.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Amazing what an Anglican in England can 'learn' about Anglicanism on this board.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Its a bit of a stretch to say that anglicanism has historically viewed the dueterocanon as scripture. The 39 articles which were considered binding for much of anglican history portray the dueterocanon as basicly good accompaniment to scripture. Now many people today may not consider the 39 articles necessary, but we can't redefine history backwards from what people believe today. Historically the 39 articles were a major, dominant part of anglicanism.

Incidentally in traditional luthernism the deuterocanon is held up as good devotional reading, which is very similar to the view held by the 39 articles.

I have a good friend who is a very traditional lutheran and his views on Theosis are very similar to the anglican view. The main difference is the language used to describe the issue.

The sacraments again.. anglican allows for all seven, but much of anglicanism has "historically" down played all but baptism and communion seeing the others as sacraments.. but not necessary sacraments.

Luthernism on this score may be more extreme in not viewing them as sacraments at all (though Luther himself did allow confession at various times in his thought), its not as huge a difference as it might at first seem.

 

[gtsecc]

Amazing what an Anglican in England can 'learn' about Anglicanism on this board.

What do you mean?

 

[AngCath]

When coming up with differances between Anglicans and Lutherans it heavily depends on which Anglican and Lutheran you ask.

 

[gitlance]

Its a bit of a stretch to say that anglicanism has historically viewed the dueterocanon as scripture. The 39 articles which were considered binding for much of anglican history portray the dueterocanon as basicly good accompaniment to scripture. Now many people today may not consider the 39 articles necessary, but we can't redefine history backwards from what people believe today. Historically the 39 articles were a major, dominant part of anglicanism.

Incidentally in traditional luthernism the deuterocanon is held up as good devotional reading, which is very similar to the view held by the 39 articles.

I have a good friend who is a very traditional lutheran and his views on Theosis are very similar to the anglican view. The main difference is the language used to describe the issue.

The sacraments again.. anglican allows for all seven, but much of anglicanism has "historically" down played all but baptism and communion seeing the others as sacraments.. but not necessary sacraments.

Luthernism on this score may be more extreme in not viewing them as sacraments at all (though Luther himself did allow confession at various times in his thought), its not as huge a difference as it might at first seem.

It's a little suspicious to make the claim that the deuterocanon is not Scripture, when in fact the Anglican Church always used it in the lectionary and for Mass readings...

In addition, many Churches in the Communion today do not require adherence to the 39 articles.

 

[PaladinValer]

Its a bit of a stretch to say that anglicanism has historically viewed the dueterocanon as scripture. The 39 articles which were considered binding for much of anglican history portray the dueterocanon as basicly good accompaniment to scripture. Now many people today may not consider the 39 articles necessary, but we can't redefine history backwards from what people believe today. Historically the 39 articles were a major, dominant part of anglicanism.

Anglicanism was around since the 1st century. In addition, many Anglicans even during the time of the "authority" of the Articles choose to accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Therefore, I stand with what I said.

I have a good friend who is a very traditional lutheran and his views on Theosis are very similar to the anglican view. The main difference is the language used to describe the issue.

That isn't the traditional Lutheran view, however. Having read some of the key writings of Dr. Martin Luther, it is quite clear his views of how we are saved are contrary to that of theosis.

The sacraments again.. anglican allows for all seven, but much of anglicanism has "historically" down played all but baptism and communion seeing the others as sacraments.. but not necessary sacraments.

My rely as to the Deuterocanon is applicable here.

Luthernism on this score may be more extreme in not viewing them as sacraments at all (though Luther himself did allow confession at various times in his thought), its not as huge a difference as it might at first seem.

He might accept them as "sacramental," that's true. To this, then you are right in that both the Anglican and Lutheran faiths accept these five as possibly "major sacramentals."

 

[DarthDigger]

wow - that post must of taken a while!

 

[Simon_Templar]

Gitlance,

I'm aware that many churches no longer uphold the 39 articles. I said as much in my post, but the point under discussion wasn't what anglican's believe now, it was what anglicanism has historically held and for the last few hundred years the 39 articles were upheld by anglicanism.

Paladin,

The claim that Anglicanism has existed since the first century is not accurate given how most people understand the term "anglican". First of all the church in britain can not properly be called "anglican" until after the 6th century because there weren't any Angles in Britain before that time. Thus the church was british, or celtic, not anglican. Secondly the claim that the English reformation simply returned the church to the pre norman conquest state of "anglicanism" is a huge over simplification and thus largely inaccurate. Most people understand the term "anglican" to apply specificly to the tradition which developed after the English reformation. For the majority of that time the 39 articles did hold sway over the Anglican tradition.

On Luther and theosis. One of the problems with Luther is that his views "developed" (ie changed) over a period of time during the reformation.. and all during that period he was writing in various forms. Thus you can support different ideas from Luther's writings, depending on what period of his development you look at. For example if you look at his very early writings, such as the 95 theses you will find his ideas are very catholic and support such things as mortification of the flesh/ascetic struggle, penance/confession etc In his later writings he moved away from some of those ideas and became less "catholic".
That of course is my opinion of his work, I'm sure there are many who would disagree.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Angles are a people, but the Anglican Church is a church, made up of many people. It is called "Anglican" only due to Henry VIII.

As for Luther. he knew his views would have consequences. He followed through the vast majority of them (with a key and notable exception being his stance on infant/immature youth Baptism). He was too committed and too proud (in a good way and a bad way) to diverge where he began.

 

[Simon_Templar]

The Angles are a people, but the Anglican Church is a church, made up of many people. It is called "Anglican" only due to Henry VIII.

As for Luther. he knew his views would have consequences. He followed through the vast majority of them (with a key and notable exception being his stance on infant/immature youth Baptism). He was too committed and too proud (in a good way and a bad way) to diverge where he began.

Exactly my point.. it is called Anglican because of Henry VIII.. so when people say "Anglican" the mean the chuch since Henry VIII.


I don't think that all of Luther's views really needed to go as far as he took them... that is to say he went beyond the natural consequence of his early beliefs, in some cases. You can see some of this if you look at the exchanges between Luther and Erasmus. At first they have great agreement and mutual admiration, but before too long they came to disagreement because Luther went much further than Erasmus thought necessary. Originaly they shared many of the same views, but Erasmus did not think they necessitated the extremes to which Luther took them.

 

[Fish and Bread]

You can see some of this if you look at the exchanges between Luther and Erasmus. At first they have great agreement and mutual admiration, but before too long they came to disagreement because Luther went much further than Erasmus thought necessary. Originaly they shared many of the same views, but Erasmus did not think they necessitated the extremes to which Luther took them.

Speaking of Erasmus... What is his canonical status within the Roman Catholic Church? Is he considered a Saint? Excomunicated? Considered a master theologian? Are his works frowned upon? It seems as though, if it hadn't already happened, that in the post Vatican II era, Erasmus is someone who the Vatican might have taken or be taking another look at.

John

 

[PaladinValer]

No, your point is an eptymological construction. Mine is historical. The Celtic Church is the same Church as the Anglican Church. They are One in the same. The only difference is a name change.