Anglican view on End Times (particularly Israel)

[Mary of Bethany]

Why do you think its far from the case? Every arguement i hear is based on extra biblical "evidence" for amillenialism.

By "far from the case" I mean in the sense that it is "the" understanding of the end times, and instead is based on a relatively recent interpretation of Scripture. I grew up listening to sermon after sermon on our pastor's interpretation of the books of Daniel and Revelations. He put so much emphasis on the end times. And frankly I think it is much more important for each of us to prepare for our own "end time" which is all that really matters, whether or not we live to see the actual Second Coming.

And if the pre-trib rapture is wrong, a lot of Christians are going to be fooled regarding the coming of the anti-Christ.

I hope I have not said anything that is contrary to Anglican teaching.

Mary

 

[godenver1]

Why do you think its far from the case? Every arguement i hear is based on extra biblical "evidence" for amillenialism.

I think what Mary was trying to say was that it is ''far from the case'' that every Christian believes in a pre-trib rapture, when she was previously under that impression growing up. Also, depending on what you mean by 'rapture', I wouldn't be shocked if many Christians don't believe in 'the rapture' itself, let alone various interpretations of it such as 'Pre-trib' or 'Post-trib'

 

[PaladinValer]

Premillennialism has long been considered heretical and was condemned in the Second and Third Ecumenical Councils, which Anglicanism historically directly acknowledge.

And I would like to take the time to remind those who are not either Anglicans or Old Catholics that debating our theology here is not permitted.

I also want to thank a certain non-member for helping to defend the true Christian belief of Amillennialism, although it certainly helps that both our good churches agree on that pure Christian theology! Thankfully defending real Christian and Anglican theology isn't against CF rules, and I've always appreciated when this individual has done so here in STR.

 

[Liberasit]

And I would like to take the time to remind those who are not either Anglicans or Old Catholics that debating our theology here is not permitted.

There isn't an Anglican theology to debate against.

 

[PaladinValer]

There isn't an Anglican theology to debate against.

Given that Augustinianism has for long been a dominant force in the British Isles...
Given that the precurser of the 39 Articles, the 42 Articles, distinctly labels Premillennialism in error...
Given that John Nelson Darby was defrocked and excommunicated for his Dispensationalism...
Given that Premillennialism was declared heretical at Constantinople I and Ephesus, both of which are directly cited historically in Anglicanism...

It adds up pretty darn well.

 

[Liberasit]

It adds up pretty darn well.

...if one see things in black and white.

 

[graceandpeace]

Given that Augustinianism has for long been a dominant force in the British Isles...
Given that the precurser of the 39 Articles, the 42 Articles, distinctly labels Premillennialism in error...
Given that John Nelson Darby was defrocked and excommunicated for his Dispensationalism...
Given that Premillennialism was declared heretical at Constantinople I and Ephesus, both of which are directly cited historically in Anglicanism...

It adds up pretty darn well.

Dispensationalism is the first thing that came to my mind. It's definetly not Anglican (or even remotely Christian, IMO) & I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise, given Darby's rejection from the Church.

 

[PaladinValer]

...if one see things in black and white.

No...if one accepts history as credible.

Black and white has nothing to do with it since my argument wasn't dualistic. My argument was based on history, so either counter what is actually presented or withdraw without further Straw Men.

And yes, it is a Straw Man reply since it doesn't address my actual argument. Can some actual respect be shown by addressing the argument? If not, then the right thing to do is simply not respond at all.

 

[PaladinValer]

Dispensationalism is the first thing that came to my mind. It's definetly not Anglican (or even remotely Christian, IMO) & I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise, given Darby's rejection from the Church.

Sadly, he fled to the United States, where our religious liberty has proven to be a double-edged sword. It is great to have people of any religion or religious belief be able to believe and practice (with a few very rare but good exceptions) their faith, but it gave rise to the sort of Fundamentalism and a unique American style Protestantism (and Catholicism, honestly) that has given us a tarnished reputation.

The solution is actually quite basic and simple enough: a solid reemphasis on excellent scholarship, education, and international repercussions. This has finally begun, but it is too little and the status quo keeps it from really kicking into high gear.

 

[Liberasit]

No...if one accepts history as credible.

Black and white has nothing to do with it since my argument wasn't dualistic. My argument was based on history, so either counter what is actually presented or withdraw without further Straw Men.

And yes, it is a Straw Man reply since it doesn't address my actual argument. Can some actual respect be shown by addressing the argument? If not, then the right thing to do is simply not respond at all.

It's not about you...

 

[GreatistheLord]

Dispensationalism is the first thing that came to my mind. It's definetly not Anglican (or even remotely Christian, IMO) & I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise, given Darby's rejection from the Church.

I think its a weak argument to say

A) because the dispensational alternative is weak (yet to be proved) my undefended position is correct
B) because some church fathers taught it it must be right, and *cannot* be disputed or debated.

I say this as a member of the anglican church, not that it really matters.

 

[Liberasit]

Where did dispensationalism creep into this debate?

 

[PaladinValer]

I think its a weak argument to say

A) because the dispensational alternative is weak (yet to be proved) my undefended position is correct
B) because some church fathers taught it it must be right, and *cannot* be disputed or debated.

I say this as a member of the anglican church, not that it really matters.

Completely ignores the history.

 

[GreatistheLord]

Completely ignores the history.

I dont think you can explain the 7 seals, bowls, or trumpets from history. It isnt a historic document. Neither
Can you explain 1000 years, or not.

It is pointless and lazy dogma, that people defend as fact.

 

[PaladinValer]

I dont think you can explain the 7 seals, bowls, or trumpets from history. It isnt a historic document. Neither
Can you explain 1000 years, or not.

It is pointless and lazy dogma, that people defend as fact.

No; it is dependent on the historical record of how Christianity actually read the book of Revelation.

Your view is not Anglican nor historically Christian. The fact that it was condemned in two Ecumenical Councils, of which both have been historically cited in Anglicanism, is very, very telling. Add that to the 42 Articles, even if they weren't authorized, gives an excellent picture of the viewpoint of Anglicanism on the subject. And again, there's John Nelson Darby's defrocking and excommunication.

I might remind all of the Statement of Purpose. Non-Anglican theology may not be promoted here. And just because someone attends an Anglican church doesn't make them Anglican.

 

[Albion]

I might remind all of the Statement of Purpose. Non-Anglican theology may not be promoted here. And just because someone attends an Anglican church doesn't make them Anglican.

...particularly perhaps if they have chosen, by their selection of a faith icon, to identify as a non-Anglican.

 

[Liberasit]

And just because someone attends an Anglican church doesn't make them Anglican.

Seriously?

 

[Liberasit]

...particularly perhaps if they have chosen, by their selection of a faith icon, to identify as a non-Anglican.

There are plenty of Charasmatic Anglicans.

 

[Albion]

There are plenty of Charasmatic Anglicans.

No one is denying that, but the selection of a faith icon here is the selection of one's "church" or "denomination," not a preferred form of prayer or worship style.

 

[PaladinValer]

I agree with Albion here.

And there have been still-fresh-to-memory cases of people who used the claim "I go to an Anglican church" to promote non-Anglican theology here that was dealt by staff. So there is recent precedence.