Christ's cry from the cross was a fulfillment of prophecy, specifically referring to Psalm 22. It is Christ yet again establishing himself as fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic prophecy. When Christ cries out "Eli, eli, lema sabachthani?" some in the crowd said "This man is calling Elijah", perhaps mishearing him (thinking he was calling for Elias, or Elijah) or not understanding the reference to Psalm 22. But Christ knew full well what was happening, and said himself that all things were unfolding according to God's revealed plan (Matt. 26:53-54).
I really cannot understand how you reach these conclusions. I read Psalm 37 and I see wise counsel and prophetic utterances, some of which pertain to events still in our future. A "literalist" reading of Psalm 37 poses no problem for me. Nor is it in any way produced by "prosperity gospel" preachers; there are plenty of Baptists and other Protestants who understand this psalm in the same way. BTW, why wield the word "fundamentalist" as if it were something dirty or warped? Is there something wrong with the fundamental (foundational) tenets of our faith?
Psalm 37 reads more like the Wisdom literature than anything else. It doesn’t really read like the Prophets, and it’s hard to recognize prophetic predictions in it (bearing in mind that the main function of prophecy wasn’t to predict the future).
There is nothing in the Psalm that would indicate that it’s a prophecy at all, let alone a messianic one. It certainly wasn’t obvious to anyone 1,000 years after this Psalm was written that the Messiah was supposed to die; that’s why the Jews rejected Jesus in the first place, as St. Paul informs us. This goes back to the “plain sense” issue I’ve highlighted before.
So was Christ quoting Psalm 22 on the cross, or was it just a coincidence? If it was just a coincidence, what did Christ mean by it, particularly in light of what he said in Matt. 26:54? Also, the "I am poured out like water and my bones are out of joint" seems pretty prophetic to me....
There's no indication from the plain sense of the text that they are. So no, I don't. That does not mean that they cannot be read typologically. Christian use of the OT, going all the way back to the NT itself, has always been quite fluid, moving from the literal to the ethical to the typological and back again. A rigid insistence on literal, linear relationships between passages was foreign to the Church age in which the Creeds were produced and the trinitarian and christological dogmas were worked out. With regard to prophecy, there are actually very few truly messianic prophecies to be found in the OT, and none of them that I'm aware of employ the term 'messiah'; that was postbiblical usage (in Judaism).
Would you say that this is the majority historic view within the Christian faith, or even within Anglicanism? I just posted a bunch of quotes proving that this is incorrect. I can post a lot more if you want. You seem to be stuck in a modernist mindset that has very little to do with early Christian teaching (whether Arian, Gnostic, or Trinitarian Christian). You are in essence projecting a (badly flawed) modern hermeneutic on previous ages. You live under the shadow of Schliermacher and other German liberals of the 17th and 18th century, and you don't even realize it. The problem is not early Christian teaching; the problem is your flawed understanding of it.
That's not a question I've really given much thought to, given that ancient interpreters didn't expound the text in those terms. One can certainly hear descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels and then read those descriptions back into passages like Isaiah 53, but there's nothing in the passage itself that indicates that it's about the messiah in the first place. The surrounding context is clear that the Servant is Israel itself, not its future king. On the other hand, one can take passages like 2 Samuel 7, which was interpreted as a messianic prophecy by both the NT (cf. Luke 1:31-33) and Rabbinic Judaism, and recognize the fluid pattern of interpretation to which I've alluded above: "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.” (2 Sam. 7:13-16 NRSV) First of all, the plain sense here seems to be referring to Solomon, not to the future messiah. Second, assuming that it is referring to the messiah, it also asserts that this future king would be guilty of sin and would be punished accordingly. It also says that this future king would build the temple, and would himself be enthroned. This sure doesn't sound like the Jesus described in the Gospels! The NT's use of these passages thus makes more sense within the framework I've described, than on the assumption that the original passage was a literal, predictive prophecy of the messiah. Schleiermacher actually lived in the 19th century. His theological work was profound and groundbreaking in many ways but it was also hindered by the fact that not much of the historical research that was going on at that time had really filtered down into theological faculties. When it came to the NT itself Schleiermacher was indistinguishable from any other orthodox theologian in that he took the canonical text at face value and assumed its reliability. Thus his presentation of Jesus owed much more to the Gospel of John than to the Synoptics. 19th century theology in the shadow of Schleiermacher was thus on a collision course with the field of Higher Criticism from an early point. One may profitably read Schleiermacher today provided one knows the limitations he was working within, but I'd say that's true for any theologian. Otherwise, I'm just trying however feebly to keep up with the state of the field; it does no good to 'bury one's head in the sand'.
What you say may well be true, (I actually subscribe to this theory myself), though you nor I can not determine that as fact merely by the evidence contained in the NT text itself, as quoted by Christ. The New Testament writers do not actually go so far as to make this point clear either. The Bible is actually silent on the issue of whether the words Christ spoke were a triumphant quotation from Psalm 22 or a cry of despair by a truly innocent human being who had discovered the author of psalm 37 to be over-enthusiastically confident in his assertions that God ALWAYS, without fail, protects the truly innocent from the harmful attacks inflicted by the wicked. - In Christ's case it certainly did not prove to be true, did it. At least in as much as the Psalmist intended his words to be literally understood. It is only in hindsight that we can see the possibility that Christ's vindication from the attacks of his enemies was to come on the third day AFTER his death on earth. Not as deliverance in the fundamental terms the writer of psalm 37 seems to have imagined the innocent to be deserving of by God. .
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. 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. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther, Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job, Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms, Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs, Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater, Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less. And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom, The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees. All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. I think that requirement to assent to the inerrancy of scripture is not what is implied by the text of Article 6. In general, as Inerrancy has been presented to me, it would mean I am required to assent to many things as historical events. That would include Balaam's Ass, and a cr0ossing of the Red Sea as depicted in the movie, (despite the clear conflict with Miriam's Song where the horse and rider are thrown into the sea. I affirm that the Bible is true. I affirm that all that is required for Salvation is to be found in Holy Scripture. I affirm that there are 73 books in Holy Scripture and that only the 66 can be used to establish that which should be believed for Salvation. As such, I think I am sitting closer to @Invictus than I am to @Ananias on this point.
I believe we had a lively discussion concerning Bible "inerrancy" a couple of years ago. Quite likely that discussion predated some of the current membership. The conclusion reached at that time was that nothing in the Articles or in Anglicanism requires a view that scripture is "inerrant" but that this forum would not countenance any assertion that the scriptures contain mistakes (i.e., errors). It is my opinion that the distinction between those two positions is so minor as to render inconsequential any opposition to "inerrancy," but YMMV.
As I recall it I was part of that discussion. My position is truth persists in myth, legend, story, and is not confined to, nor constrained by the account of historical events.
Or was it just not recognised as such until after the crucifixion? Luke 24:44 Now He (Jesus) said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Good explanation here; Jesus in Psalm 22
Every single Bible on my shelf (at least those with references) point to Psalm 22 from Matt 27:46: KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, LSB,NET, CSB, and the Augustine Catholic Bible. There seems to unanimity that a reference to Psalm 22 is indeed the standard interpretation; I do not understand where your confusion comes from. I've never even heard of anybody who doesn't believe this until this conversation started. What Bible are you guys even reading?
Yet again, you misunderstand: "prophecy" is not "prediction" in the sense you're using it. In the OT and NT, a prophet is one who brings the oracles of God to the people. It might have to do with the future, but not necessarily so. (The English word prophet coming from the Greek prophetes, one who speaks forth.) Now generally God's oracles involve some future repurcussions for a present state of behavior (whether good or bad), but not always. Think of the giving of the Decalogue to Moses, or the revealing by God of the Levitical laws and rituals. Moses is acting as a prophet by giving God's Law even though it pertains to the here and now rather than the future. Oracles brought by prophets may involve blessings, curses, or instructions, or some combination of all three. Prophetic speech can also relate to the interpretation of dreams (as with Joseph in Gen. 41). Ultimately a prophet acts as God's spokesman on earth, which is why a prophet delivers oracles with "Thus says the LORD" or "God has revealed" or "It is written" (in Scripture). They are not speaking their own words, but God's. It's not a "prediction" but God's own perfect knowledge.
"True" in what sense? I think conservatives and liberals mean something completely different when they use that word, so I'd like to know what your definition is.