Hello, I am a student Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and am seeking some answers about Anglican belief, as I am considering the Church after graduate studies, particularly the ACNA. The largest question I have currently is on what level is Dispensational belief compatible with Anglican church life? I would consider myself a classical Dispensationalist especially as it concerns the relationship between the Church and Israel. I have tried searching some things out on this, but there just doesn't seem to be much written about it. Any experienced input as to whether this would prevent me from joining or serving in the Anglican Church?
I am fascinated that you are both Messianic and interested in Israel. I suggest looking here: http://www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com
Thank you for the link! I am Messianic in the sense that it is the denomination that I attend and serve in while I am in school. Not Jewish myself though, just a Gentile who loves the Jewish people and Jewish ministry. Unfortunately that is too long to put in the "religion" line
Friend would you mind elaborating further here?... What is classical dispensationalism? I am sorry I am not from that world and would genuinely like to understand this better
Sure! Thank you for asking. Essentially Dispensationalism utilizes the "Grammatical-historical" approach to interpretation, or interpreting "normatively" (I prefer to not use the word "literally" because someone always asks if this means symbols are interpreted ultra-literally), meaning; the plain sense of the text. Dispensationalism sees God working in different systems, or dispensations, throughout the ages. Such as primarily acting through the Patriarchs with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then later acting primarily through Israel and the Law of Moses. Today in this age, He is working through Jesus and the Church. Based upon this, Dispensationalism, as a theology, holds to a distinction between the ethnic, national, people of Israel and the spiritual entity of the Church. The promises for Israel are Israel, and the promises for the Church are for the Church. The Church therefore does not fulfill or replace Israel. Rather, the Church is her own entity, made up of both believing Jewish people and Gentiles and is the body and bride of Christ. She shares in the spiritual blessings of the Covenants given to Israel, grafted in by grace. Many within the Dispensational camp also hold to the rapture, specifically a pre-tribulational rapture, and more importantly, Dispensational theology teaches the literal millennial reign of Jesus on the throne of David. It is during this time that the Jewish people will come to faith nationally. It is also during this time that the, as of yet, unfulfilled promises to Israel will be fulfilled to her. I have tried to be concise, touching on the key points, and obviously I can't speak to all of it in one post without writing something much larger. However, that is the basic thought, especially when it comes to Israel and the Church. Here is a short article from GotQuestions concerning Dispensationalism as well. https://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html
Dispensationalism is not a position that conforms to historical Anglican teaching. But you might find some factions in ACNA that will not object to the view.
Dispensationalism is a word like Rapture that when I hear it you might as be talking to me about the new world translation. It is a term that says I am going to be hearing a lot of stuff that is going to give me a head ache soon. Also what is a Messianic? Kinda confused there. Can we stop with new denominations, there too many to keep track of
Thanks... from what I understand, here is why historically the Church Universal has not adopted this interpretation, why the dispensationalists are in the minority: 1.) It means that God can, and frequently does, change his mind 2.) It deprives us of any assurance about the future, for if "today God is working through Jesus and the Church" then why cannot he tomorrow work through Joseph Smith and the mormons of North America? Or how about, when the year strikes 2100, why couldn't God work through Cthulu and the Martian colony of Cigma-5?
Question? What does working through Jesus mean? Isn't Jesus God? I thought the Trinity has always been through the Church (first the Hebrews and than the Christians) bringing about the plan he has established since before time? That is the Church he working through? Am I missing something? Maybe explaining my thinking poorly?
First, thank you for the courtesy that you have extended toward me in these questions. I suspect that it is my explanation that is poor, rather than anyone's thinking being poor. Also, as a full-time student, I am not always able to respond in the most timely manner, so forgive me not answering promptly after your own questions. I am not averse to arguing Dispensationalism, though I myself am cautious about this being derailed into an argument over theology rather than my original inquiry. That being said, Messianic, in this context, refers to a Jewish person who have come to faith in Jesus. It is simply a more Hebraic way of saying "Christian". With the large number of Jewish people coming to faith, particularly in American Evangelical Protestantism, Messianic Congregations were formed starting in the 60's and 70's in which Jewish believers, and Gentiles who appreciate the expression, could practice their faith in a Jewish way and raise their children with a Jewish Christian identity. Indeed, this was one of the things that got me interested in the ACNA as communication and partnership with Messianic congregations is being pursued.
I'm not sure how to quote multiple people in one post, so I'll have to make due with multiple posts for the moment, but assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. No, it does not mean that God frequently "changes His mind" the working out in different dispensations and ages is not the result of a God who cannot decide, but rather how He has chosen to do things. Everyone believes, to some extent, that God has changed His ways of doing things throughout the ages, though salvation always being by Grace through Faith. The fact that many of us today eat pork and other unkosher foods is proof enough of that. Perhaps I did not understand the 1st point however. 2. Simply put, Scripture tells us that He is working in and through the Church today, and will continue to do so until He comes (1 Cor 11:26). When He returns, it will be with the gathering up of the Church into the air to meet Him (1 Thess 4:13-18) (this is not to get into the weeds of pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or no rapture at all theology). After this, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, He will return to Zion and remove the uncleanliness from Jacob (Rom 11:25-32). All things relating to Doctrine are revealed through Scripture, the canon of Scripture is closed, and there simply is no hint or room for anything besides His working in the Church and His restoration of Israel. This probably is not satisfactory, and I admit I have never actually been asked that question so i'm still working through an articulation of it. Thank you friend again for your courtesy
This was more my poor wording than your poor thinking. I did not meant to imply that Jesus was not God, or that beforehand Jesus was not working through His people. What Dispensational teaching denies is that the Church existed in the Old Testament. The Church came into being at Pentecost as recorded in the book of Acts. From that point on, He has continue to work and build up His Church, a spiritual temple, the Body of Christ etc. until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Rom 11:25-32). The Hebrews, the Jewish people, are a nationally elect people (Jer 31:35-36) who have always had a remnant of believers within her (Isa 10:22). A people within a people so to speak (Rom 11:1-6). However, they are not the Church in the New Testament sense, a mystery that was revealed only in the New Testament (Eph 3:1-7). Indeed, they will be restored to salvation in the future, which will lead to the resurrection of the dead (Rom 11: 15) What I mean by working through Jesus today is that in times past, He worked through the Law of Moses and the Tabernacle/Temple. He worked through the animal sacrifices as the means of atonement (Lev 17:11). Now, in the New Covenant He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus, God in the Flesh, and His final atonement for us upon the cross, which takes away our sins (Heb 10:10). Before, He worked through the administration of the Law as a Pedagogue, to lead Israel to Christ (Gal 3:23-25), and now is working through the administration of Grace and Truth in Jesus (John 1:17). This isn't to say that grace was not present at times beforehand, nor that law is absent now, but rather the unique manifestation of it. my apologies, this was probably much longer than what you had asked.
Thank you for answering my questions regarding the place of these views, especially the relationship between the Church and Israel. From speaking with one of my Professors who is also Anglican as well, while it would be a minority view, it does not seem to be completely unacceptable
As a Dispensationalist you might have some difficulty accommodating the Anglican view of baptism, which is understood by us Anglicans in the context of a 'Covenant Theology' which draws from both Old and New Testament scripture for its justification. In effect this means that we believe there is Biblical warrant to baptize adults upon their hearing and understanding of The Gospel, with Repentence and commitment to Christ and his teaching, (either by effusion of immersion), but also to baptize the infants of believers, on the grounds of the scriptural covenant God has made between himself and them and their offspring, (until such time as those infants take upon themselves their promises to keep Covenant with God at their Confirmation, by being faithful to Jesus Christ and living according to His teaching, as learned from their believing parents). So Anglicans do not recognize a theology which suggests that God has dispensed with any historically 'past dispensation', only that God's plan of Redemption has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and His Church is the same 'Church' that has existed since Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness, but the Church now includes also Gentiles because it is under the same more gracious and comprehensive New Covenant. You will also find that many Anglicans can find no scriptural warrant to justify what some term, 'The Rapture'. This is regarded by many to be an 18th century North American, theological innovation based upon a selective misinterpretation of scripture. We expect the return of Christ to be the promised Resurrection. Other than that you may find the inclusive tolerance of Anglicanism liberating, compared to some of the more prescriptive forms of 'church' found in the Americas, or you may find it challenging if you looking for a Church which follows strict rules of doctrine on relatively unimportant issues. .
Thank you Tiffy. Yes, my fiance and I am working through the baptism doctrines with the priest of the congregation i am attending. Been a wrestling to be sure, looking at it through a lens ive never considered. I dont understand your last paragraph. Are you saying that the Anglican Church does not have strict rules over unimportant issues?
We have the 39 Articles of religion. They are our general guide to Church Practice and matters of faith. The Church of England, (thus Anglican), came about when Henry VIII split from the RC Church and the Pope. The C of E was in fact already in a spirit of reform, dating back to Wycliffe over 100 years earlier, then the Church of England was established under Elizabeth 1st and James 1st united it with the production of The King James Bible. Thus the Ex Roman Catholic and Ex Non Conformist sections became one state Church with two very different traditions and worship styles. The Church of England (Anglican), is thus peculiarly not either 'Protestant' or 'Roman Catholic', it is both 'Catholic and Reformed'. This means that we tolerate many practices that may be considered 'Roman Catholic' and we also have a strong Evangelical tradition, which try to coexist within the same overall Church. Most Churches though are either one way inclined or the other in their worship styles. It is in those worship styles that you will find the most variation from one congregation to another. Tolerance of these issues of 'style' are what makes us diverse, the 39 Articles of faith are what make us cohesive. Somehow we try to muddle through, and see each other's points of view, as any good inclusive church should try to do. .
Just wanted to add a couple of things to the above: the traditional foundations of Anglican doctrine are to be found in the Book of Common Prayer, Articles of Religion, the Catechism, the Ordinal, and the various historic canons. Also the Church of England was first formed in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD; it was strengthened by the refoundation in the 6th century by Augustine of Canterbury; in the middle ages it was under the sway and was corrupted by the Roman church, and was reformed in the 16th century. At present it is again being corrupted by the acid of liberalism, modernism, feminism, and sodomite theology, but that's a different story. But Tiffy's account of the Anglican problems with dispensationalism and rapture is a worthwhile one!
Historically I agree with Stalwart about 1st -2nd cent Church, but I was considering that the Church in England rather than the Church of England. He makes a valid point though. Our history goes right back to the Celtic Church and the Roman Occupation. In England, where I live, some of our church sites, (if not the buildings), go back almost that far too.
In many areas such as our form of worship and prayers reflect more of what second temple Judaism was like and a lot less like modern Rabbinical Judaism. That way I am having a trouble understanding Messanic. Also the Anglican like the Catholic and Orthodox (also lutheran, calvin, ETC ) see the Church starting with Abraham, Than after Christ it continued with the people who believed in Christ. The Church was the new Israel. That pretty much kills any idea we see in things like "left behind" type end of the world.
All of you may find this blog very interesting: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/ Ms. Linsley has a number of views that are not the Protestant norm. But specifically related to the topic at hand she posits a Noahic/Abrahamic priesthood as the precursor of a sacerdotal Christian priesthood. Her presentation has some interesting implications for the Aaronic priesthood but I'm not going to try to summarize anymore. This is the type of writing that must be read slowly and carefully.