Hello all, I am a Canadian looking into ANiC and the ACoC, respectively. I grew up in a heterodox sect of Oneness/Holiness Pentecostalism, and a study of both ends of church history to verify the claims made there led me to the Reformation. Becoming Calvinist led to the 1689 LBC and the Puritans, then to the 3 Forms of Unity, and then to Cranmer and company, via Packer's beautiful writings. I fell in love with the 1662 BCP and found myself desiring to study and worship within the historic English tradition. I am sympathetic to both Geneva and Wittenberg, but gladly affirm the 39 Articles as written. God bless.
Thanks all! I have lurked here now and then, and have read the main site documents for at least the last year or so.
So neat to hear the various directions from which people arrive at, or even just visit, the Anglican tradition. Welcome, Othniel!
Thanks! I've been in a few Anglican groups in the big blue site, but I've appreciated several key threads on here and been a lurker for a bit.
You have said being sympathetic to Wittenberg.. can you speak about what draws you in the Lutheran tradition? One doesn’t often find a 1689 baptist/puritan guy moving in that direction
In general, I am surprised by how isolated the lutheran brothers and sisters are, from the rest of Christendom...... I don't know of any big forums run by them where everyone can talk to each other, I don't see them interacting much with non-lutherans, or going onto people's podcasts.. The big outreach programs like "Issues etc" seem to be aimed squarely from the lutherans back to other lutherans.... Is this a cultural phenomenon?
After becoming convinced of infant baptism in the Covenantal scheme, I then came face to face with Cranmer's language in the baptismal rite, as well as the Reformer's constant reference to regeneration being closely associated to baptism. After having recently read Concord, I found much good in their objective view of baptism, especially in light of the benefits offered by being joined to the visible Covenant community, and the seemingly more clear view of apostasy and the warning passages in Hebrews; but ultimately found the doctrine of resistible grace to be unconvincing. I also came to grapple with the Lutheran view of Real Presence in the Lord's Supper- I can understand their view, but ultimately have found my conscience settled in the language of the Articles and not defining real = physically corporeal. I was somewhat forced to deal with this recently after our move when it 's been near impossible to reach the smaller Anglican parishes but the only other church that has been offering live (drive-in) services is Lutheran Church of Canada.
I should point out that Anglican's believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Lutheran view of it is an option to believe in. We just don't define it as it is a Holy Mystery
Art 28: Of the Lord’s Supper. THe Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the Love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another: but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s Death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith receive the same, the Bread which we break, is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the Change of the Substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ: but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly & spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Lords Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was not by Christ’s Ordinance Reserved, Carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. Art. 29: Of the wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper. THe wicked and such as be void of a lively Faith, altho’ they do carnally & visibly press with their Teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body & Blood of Christ: yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ; but rather to their Condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing. Meanwhile, in the Saxon Visitation Articles: Article I: Of the Lord’s Supper: The pure and true Doctrine of our Churches on the Lord’s Supper. 1] That the words of Christ, ‘Take and eat, this is my Body;’ ‘Drink, this is my Blood,’ are to be understood in the simple and literal sense, as they sound. 2] That, in the Sacrament, there are two things which are exhibited and received together: one, earthly, which is bread and wine; the other, heavenly, which is the body and blood of Christ. 3] That these things [this union, exhibition, and sumption] take place here below on the earth, and not above in heaven 4] That the true and natural body of Christ which hung on the cross, and the true and natural blood, which flowed from the side of Christ, are exhibited and received. 5] That the body and blood of Christ are received in the Supper, not only spiritually, which might be done out of the Supper; but by the mouth, with the bread and wine; yet in an inscrutable and supernatural manner; and this for a pledge and ascertainment of the resurrection of our bodies from the dead. 6] That the body and blood of Christ are received orally, not only by the worthy, but also by the unworthy, who approach them without repentance and true faith; though with different effect. By the worthy, they are received for salvation; by the unworthy, for judgment.
But like I said, I do feel somewhat sympathetic to the Lutheran view since it aims to uphold a high view of Chalcedonian Christology, even if ultimately I find the Cranmerian view more scripturally accurate.
I am not sure your point. All through Anglican History that has been read by some in a Lutheran Manner. I think we often read it with our sympathies and make it fit what we want.
My point is, that while there is considerable overlap in the 2 views, confessional Lutheranism clearly condemns the doctrine of the Articles as written. To paraphrase jokingly, Melancthon did nothing wrong.
Well as I said just above, the lutherans are notorious for having a weirdly hyper-customized Christianity that isn’t based in history but in specific german thought leaders circa 1520-1540, so their exclusions are by no means rational from that fact alone