Anglicanism and Dispensationalism

Discussion in 'Questions?' started by Aaron Gann, Nov 5, 2018.

  1. Rev2104

    Rev2104 Active Member

    Posts:
    169
    Likes Received:
    53
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I did more research on the whole Messanic and ya that sounds like a complete rejection of Christ

    In the apostle life time they stopped being kosher, moved the sabbath to sunday and pretty much believed that outer trappings of the law was made void by Christ. That his work fulfilled those outer laws and what matter is in the believers heart. The inner law.

    So adding anything back in that the apostle took out is a form of judaizing, which was an early heresy of the church. Adding such things like a modern pass over meal ( which is wildly different than the one practiced in second temple Judaism) would be a very odd issue with the historical development with Judaism and in many ways a denial of the true pass over, the pass over of Christ.

    I know I am just a nut job on the internet, but do some research of the early history of the church and it's rule with Judaism. We should always reflect back on the history of the church and it's early development for us to get a fuller view of Christianity.
    I am not even saying the way me, an anglo catholic, worships is the same as they did. I know thou my roots of my worship is there. I would say with a hundred percent certainty my beliefs are there, some might not of have been fully developed but the roots are there. By the 3rd and 4th century you can see something that almost mirrors Anglicanism.
     
    jschwartz likes this.
  2. jschwartz

    jschwartz New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    8
    Messianic Judaism is essentially an evangelical movement which targets Jews for conversion. ACNA supports CMJ and other such efforts, but many, many scholars accept Dual Covenant theology, including the Roman Catholic Church, and most within the Episcopal Church.

    I think for most Christians, the idea that one should or can be Christian while observing Jewish holidays and rituals, is somewhat abhorrent. It's heretical, offensive to Jews, constitutes cultural appropriation, and violates the baptismal covenant. There was a priest in the church who tried Chrislam, and was promptly defrocked by a bishop who was herself a convert from Judaism. Religious syncretism is a no-no. Participating in authentic Jewish worship as a guest, or listening to a scholar lecture on the Jewish roots of the faith is one thing, but Jews for Jesus is a whole other ball game. I reject it wholeheartedly. "Christ in the Passover" is a total joke. They tell people that stripes on a Manischewitz matzah are a prophetic symbol of the lashes Our Lord suffered when the Romans whipped His back. This is patently absurd, especially considering that matzos were only made by machine for 150 years or so! Most of the haggadah is rabbinical in origin, and elements were adopted from Roman culture;it is a product of the diaspora, and the scholarship indicating that the Last Supper was a seder is flimsy.


    All Messianics manage to do is anger Jews and infuriate actual Christians.

    That being said, Christian Zionism has roots in Anglicanism. You would find Bishop JC Ryle interesting. In his work, “Coming Events and Present Duties,” Ryle wrote, “Christ will gather the scattered tribes of Israel, and place them once more in their own land… As He literally rode upon an ass, was literally sold for thirty pieces of silver, had His hands and feet literally pierced, was numbered literally with the transgressors and had lots literally cast upon His raiment, and all that Scripture might be fulfilled so also will He come, literally set up a kingdom and literally reign over the earth.”
     
  3. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    jschwartz, I am puzzled by your statement that "the scholarship indicating that the Last Supper was a seder is flimsy." We know from Scripture that it was the time of year for the traditional Passover meal, and that Jesus ordered His disciples to make the arrangements for that Passover meal. Then they reclined at table, as is the custom in a seder, and partook of (presumably unleavened) bread and wine which are a part of a seder meal. Could you elaborate on why you reject the idea that this was a seder?
     
  4. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    There will most definitely be a rapture, as can be seen from Scripture. However, I believe it was misconstrued as an event occurring prior to the Second Advent.
    1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
    1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
    1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
    1Th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

    The word "rapture" comes from the Latin "raptiere" which was the Latin word in verse 17 which is translated to English as "caught up." It may be observed that this 'catching up' includes the dead in Christ and the living in Christ (no unbelievers). So, quite simply, this 'catching up' of all Christians is the 'rapture of the Church' which many Protestants refer to.

    The problem arises where the Protestants combine this thought with a couple of other thoughts from Scripture. First,
    1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
    and second,
    Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
    Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
    Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
    Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
    Rev 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
    Rev 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

    They see in Revelation that God is about to pour out His wrath upon the world, but 1 Thess. 5:9 says the believers are not appointed to wrath. So they reach a conclusion that God is going to catch up His church before He pours out the tribulation wrath upon the earth.

    Whoever came up with this idea that God would catch away His church prior to the Great Tribulation (some say 7 years, others say 3.5 years) failed to take into account Jesus' words in Matthew.
    Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
    Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
    Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    So the 'rapture' or 'catching up' of the church basically occurs at the time of the Second Advent. So those who say there is no rapture are half right, insomuch as the event is not separate from the Second Coming of Christ.

    Some folks would say, "But what about the marriage supper of the Lamb, which will have all believers in attendance?" The popular view has been that this takes place in heaven, based on Rev. 19. But it could (and I believe should) be interpreted as a celebration that takes place here on earth at the beginning of Christ's millenial reign on earth.
     
  5. jschwartz

    jschwartz New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    8
  6. jschwartz

    jschwartz New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    8
    Christ suffered death to save those who love Him from the law. No seders. No tallises. None of this Jews for Jesus nonsense.
     
  7. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Thank you for explaining. And I agree with your subsequent comment that it is unwarranted to Judaize the church, a la "Jews for Jesus."

    In reading the article you linked to, their argument flows like this: We have 3 accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which support the idea that this was the Passover "seder" meal, but those 3 are really just 1 because Matthew and Luke copied Mark's account. And we don't believe that 1 account, because we have an account in John that makes us think the meal in question was one day earlier. So even though theologians have believed for centuries that this was the Passover (after the sun had set on the 14th) meal, we think it was after the sundown of the 13th.

    It seems to me that this page in 'biblicalarchaeology.org' is a fine example of modern theology, that is, liberal thinking which rejects long-accepted truths in favor of new ideas.

    The 4 gospels present 4 (possibly more) separate witnesses. Throughout each gospel, each writer presents additional facts not given by the other three. These additional facts must have had a source, and these sources are additional witnesses. As an example of this reasoning, William Lane Craig explains that Jesus's burial and subsequent empty tomb are verified by at least six sources in the Bible: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/independent-sources-of-the-empty-tomb . An example of this in the Last Supper accounts is found in Luke 22:15-16: He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for I tell you, I will no longer by any means eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." This bit of knowledge is not contained in any of the other gospels, so it is not merely "a copy of Mark's gospel" but is a distinct source. Another example is Matthew 26:25: Judas, who betrayed him, answered, "It isn't me, is it, Rabbi?" He said to him, "You said it." This is unique to Matthew's account, so it is not a mere "copy of Mark." Therefore, the "witness" score appears to stand at 3 to 1.

    But actually, the score is Four to Zip. The article cites John 19:14 as a contradiction in fact to the other three gospels, in that the article's author interprets this verse to mean that Jesus is crucified on the day before the Passover meal is eaten. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! (John 19:14) One of the primary principles of sound hermeneutics is that all scriptures harmonize. If one scripture seems to contradict three others, the one scripture likely has been misinterpreted. In this instance, Mark's gospel gives us the understanding we need.
    Mar 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
    Mar 15:43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

    The "preparation of the Passover" was the "day of preparation" or the "preparation", which was the day before a sabbath when people were preparing food to eat on the sabbath (no one was permitted to cook food on a sabbath, so they cooked it ahead of time). Since Passover is celebrated every year for 7 days, inevitably there is one "day of preparation" of every Passover.

    In this particular year, the impeding sabbath was a 'Sabbaton' or high sabbath, which fell on Friday and was followed by a common sabbath on Saturday. Thus Jesus was crucified on Thursday, was in the grave on Friday (high sabbath) and Saturday (usual sabbath), and arose from the dead on the 'third day' which was the first day of the week, Sunday.

    Interpreting John 19:14 otherwise not only makes liars of Matthew, Mark and Luke, it also invalidates the rich prophetic picture which Passover presented of the coming Messiah! The people ate unleavened bread, and leaven (yeast) symbolizes sin; Jesus was without sin, so the unleavened bread was a type of His body. This is why Jesus said of it, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19), even though he was sitting right there (in his body, as yet un-given-up). This passage shows that Jesus was speaking symbolically and spiritually rather than transubstantiating the bread into human flesh. Note also that this is another example of a unique witness, for this do in remembrance of me is recorded by no other gospel writer. And then, most likely Jesus spoke the words, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you, over the 'third cup' of wine which was traditionally called 'the cup of redemption'; this was yet another example of type and antitype.

    Moreover, prior to the Seder the unleavened bread is divided into three portions and placed in a cloth bag called the ‘unity bag’ (a type of the Trinity). During the ceremony, one of the portions is taken out and broken in half; one half is returned to the bag, but the other half is wrapped in linen and hidden for a time. Later on this hidden part is brought forth in a triumphant manner. This is a beautiful prophetic picture of Jesus' burial and resurrection. During that year the Feast of Firstfruits fell on the 17th of Aviv, and on that very day Jesus (the firstfruits of the resurrection) came out of the grave.

    Is it "Judaizing" to acknowledge the intricacy of the prophetic tapestry which our loving God has woven to show us the Way? If so, then we must discard every prophetic element in the Old Testament which points to Jesus the Messiah!

    God bless.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
    anglican74 likes this.
  8. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    738
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    What a rich and powerful exposition, and it underscores *why* it’s so essential to know and be intimately familiar not only with the Seder itself but the whole Judaic tradition: the day starting *at sundown*, the behaviors and rituals at the Seder which figure the Trinity, and even things like the Shema which our Lord and Saviour himself recites in the gospels
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  9. Fr. Brench

    Fr. Brench New Member Anglican

    Posts:
    21
    Likes Received:
    17
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    This cannot be emphasized enough, Rev2104 hit it on the head!

    If you want to explore and celebrate the Jewish roots of Christianity, become a catholic/liturgical Christian, of which Anglicanism is an exemplar. The modern Jewish seder is arguably quite different from the manner in which the Passover was celebrated in the 1st century. Our best sources on how they did it back then is the New Testament, not the Jews for Jesus presentation of the seder meal. (Not that the current seder isn't full of fruitful imagery for a Christian to exploit and enjoy, but it's simply not reliably historic. And at worst it can be distracting from Christ our Passover in the Holy Communion.)

    The biggest problem of dispensationalism, from my understanding, is its arbitrary separation of Israel and the Church as if there are two distanct and parallel communities of faith. At best, this is an unnecessary complication of Scriptural interpretation. At worst, it is the gross heresy of salvation apart from the name of Jesus Christ. John Nelson Darby, who in a sense founded dispensationalism as a school of thought, was an Anglican minister who left to found his own denomination in order to further his teachings.

    So is dispensationalism compatible with Anglican teachings? Hardly any of it :/
    Aaron Gann, as I'm sure you're already aware by now, you're looking at a major paradigm shift in considering the Anglican tradition.
     
  10. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Your post prompted me to go back to my notes from the "Dispensational Truths" class I took in the mid-'90s, and review them. With nearly 25 years of additional experience, I see now that what was taught was not entirely consistent.

    It was said that people from Moses' time until the time of Christ were under the Age of Law and were trying to be justified by obedience to the Law; but the Law was given as a 'schoolmaster' to prove to people that no one could keep the Law perfectly and that they needed a Savior; thus, the Law pointed toward Christ. Yet the inference was made that, during this dispensation, Israelites who did a decent enough job of keeping the Law were counted righteous 'retroactively' after Christ died and rose from the tomb.

    At the same time, it was also said that the Law was given to make them mindful of their inheritance as true-believing sons of Abraham; this statement implied that they were justified by faith (believing) rather than by a measurement of their obedience to the Law.

    After looking over the notes, my next thought was to re-read Hebrews 11. There, we see people named who were accounted righteous by faith. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are among the people mentioned from the time before the Law was given, but from the "Age of Law" we also see Moses, David, Samuel, and the prophets named. This seems to show that it always has been a matter of justification by faith even during the time of the Law. So I can see why dispensationalists are off-base in thinking of these ages as dispensations, in the sense of God dealing with people in different ways, with definite ends to the old ways of dealing when the new way was begun.

    That said, I still cannot see my way through to this idea of calling O.T. men of faith "the church." It seems to me that "the church" was established upon Jesus Christ ("Upon this rock I will build my church") and therefore "the church" could not have existed prior to the First Advent. It appears that the ekklesia was first formed in the upper room at Pentecost (which was probably the only time the church has been in complete unity, too). Is there scriptural support to the contrary?
     

Share This Page