Anglo-Catholic way

Arius VS Athenasius

2009-12-02T12:20:00.000-08:00

I will address in my paper who was Arius and those involved around him ? What did he believe and teach dealing with Christology? Show that groups still hold to his teachings directly or indirectly. Then who was Athanasius? What has his defense against Arianism? What did the council of Nicea decide about Arianism? lastly I will be defending the orthodox stance of Christology by using the Scriptures and the Church Fathers.
Arius lived from 256 – 336 A.D. He was born in north Africa and it would seem that he studied at the school of Antioch, which during this time was one of the two great schools of learning, the other one being in Alexandria. His teacher while in Antioch was named Lucian (Moyer, 17).
Lucian's date of death is all we know and this was in 312 he was born in Samosata Syria and he was taught in Edessa and maybe in Caesarea. After this be went to Antioch and started a school and was ordained a presbyter. Two of his students were Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia and it is believed that Lucian is the real founder of the Arian Heresy. Lucian was excommunicated because he was thought to be a heretic, from 268 to 303 A.D. He was readmitted to the church under St. Cyril's episcopacy. The end of his life was that of martyr in the area of Diocletian: he was arrested for being a christian and was then brought to Nicomedia where he made a defense for himself before the judge but was still sentenced to death and ended up dying while being tortured in prison in 312 A.D. It is said that a year earlier he came back to the orthodox faith and left his old view behind.(Moyer 257)
Now that we see where Arius came from we will move back to his life. He became a parish priest at Baukails: this was the one of oldest and important church at this time. This is the area that was thought to be the area where the tomb of St. Mark was along with many other martyrs. (hunter, and harvey 239) He began to gain a following from his teachings on Jesus being the Son of God but not god himself. This caused the Archbishop Alexander to call a council (Moyer, 17).
Alexander of Antioch was a defender of orthodox faith and the Trinity: he died in 328 A.D. He was archbishop of Alexandria from 313-328 A.D. and he had to deal with the Arian teachings in his area because of the problems it was causing with the bishops and Arius. A council was called in the Alexandria church and Arius and his followers were condemned and excommunicated. They found safety with one of the other students of Lucian one who was a bishop named Eusebius of Nicomedia (Moyer, 9).
Eusebius of Nicomedia died in 342 A.D. He bacame the bishop of Phoenicia and then later Nicomedia, and this was where the imperial court was. He was favored by the Emperor for most of the time and he defended Arius greatly during the Council of Nicea but he to signed the creed with hesitations. But soon after started again fighting for Arianism and this resulted in the Emperor becoming very angry with him and banishing him for three years. When he was allowed back he tried to regain favor with the emperor which he did and then stated to fight for Arianism all the more and He was the one who baptized Constantine in 337 A.D. Then he became the Patriarch o Constantinople in 339 A.D. Which he held until his death in 342 A.D. He held favor with the Arian emperor Constantius (Moyer 137).
From here Arius keeps writing on his view and meanwhile Alexander, with the help of a young archdeacon and personal secretary Named Athanasius, started to write promoting the Trinitarian view (Moyer, 9).
Arius under the ban of the archbishop and council grew in power and influence among many clergy some of whom were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia where he was staying at. Arius keep teaching and the Emperor found this to be getting out of a hand so he sent out Hosius Bishop of Cordova.
Hosius lived from 257-358 A.D He became the Bishop of Cordova in 295 A.D. And then the ecclesiastical advisor for the Emperor in 323 A.D. was sent to Egypt to deal with the Arian problem, and it is believed that during the council of Nicea he was the one the wrote the Creed (Moyer, 202).
The Arian controversy kept going even after Hosius was sent to stop it and this caused a council to meet in Nicea and Arius was present at this council because when the council sided that the Trinitarian view should be accepted Arius and two other bishops refused to sign the document and were deposed and banished. Some of the other bishops who signed did so with reluctance but submitted to the wisdom of the council. Those who sided with Arius were allowed to return to their churches and Arius was allowed to come back from exile. Then the battle started up again but this time the Arians started to win and oppressed the teachers of the trinitarian view. They had Athanasius exiled for some time. The battle kept going till the death of Arius in 336 A.D. Just before his death he signed the Nicea statement , which we are not sure if this was from an honest convection or not but just before being readmitted to communion he died. The battle between the two sides died down for some time until Constantine's sons accepted Arianism and this allowed a renewal of the battle again until 381 A.D. When the problem was put to rest by the council of Constantinople when they adopted the Nicea creed.
This section of the paper is covering the beliefs of Arius that he held during his time. This is one of his quote from a letter he wrote to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria:
“For when giving to him [the Son] the inheritance of all things, the Father did not deprive himself of what he has without beginning in himself; for he is the source of all things. Thus there are three subsisting realities . And God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely without beginning; but the Son, begotten apart from time by the Father, and created and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten beginnings. But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all”(Arius).
We see here that Arius is telling the bishop that he does not believe that the Son was eternal ; he says that the Father is without beginning but the Son is not. The really important phrase is when he says that the Son is not co- eternal or co-unbegotten. This is not to say that Arius and his followers told him that the Son is the only begotten Son of God and God created Him before time and He is not uncreated like the Father.(hunter, and harvey 240)
This comes from Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia:
“Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest”(Arius).
In Arius's second letter he again points to the Son as being appointed and born. This is the next thing though, that the Son contains nothing of God's essence. The Son is not equal to the Father in his view. He goes on to say, that the Son cannot see God ,but only see through the power given to Him. The Son only exists because the Father wills it as a Father to Him and the Son is the wisdom of God because God wants Him do be but all that wisdom originates from the Father. The Son who was created by the Father, can not comprehend the one who created Him because He is not God. He is spirit, power, wisdom, glory, truth, and light these are the energies of the Son but these all come from the Father and are not part of Him innately(hunter, and harvey 240).
In a letter back to Arius from Alexander, he speaks about his disagreement on how God is the only uncreated being and the Son was created. The Son does not share in God's nature and He is not the Word or wisdom of God in essence, and if this is the case then the Son is mutable by nature and He doesn't fully know or see the Father and Alexander also says in theory the Son could change because He was created. This is showing how far Arius's teachings went with others (hunter, and harvey 243).
This view has come in part to Origens failure to explain the Father and Son relationship. Origen was defended by Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers because he made sure to place all three as God but he left the door open enough for the future teachers of Alexandria to create heresy (Schaff 255).
In the titles given to the Son are given to Him by God, With the title for wisdom this is given because the Son was given wisdom but the Father is called wise because it comes from Him. So then this is showing how Christ is a created being and has nothing that the Father has not given to Him (hall 123).
Now in our own day there still are people who follow Arius's doctrine. One of whom is the Arian church that goes by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. As a group they hold that Arius was right in his teachings and they affirm strongly. They believe that the council of Nicaea was the most heretical event in Christendom. The three main groups they blame for leading masses out of the orthodox faith is: Rome, Constantinople and England. This is proof of their beliefs “Christ was not divine but his title was honorific of a man who was worthy of being called “Son of God” and whose Spirit was chosen and sent by God” (Hanson).
They openly state the teachings of the Trinity is completely wrong, and all of Christendom for holding it. They blame Constantine the Great for ruining the Church, but for different reasons then most Christians say he did. For the Arian Church, he called the council and he was trying to push paganism into the Church by allowing the Trinity to be accepted and forcing the Arians out. They say those who believe in the Trinity are polytheistic thier view. They point to Tertullian of Carthage because he first brings up the Trinity and they point to that this idea comes from Greek and Hindu views of God (Hanson).
They point out that Constantine the Great was wrong in what he did for calling the council and siding with the Trinitarians: they move to say that they worshipped saints and changing the Gospels we do have and then destroying other. They also do what most protestants do in attacking Constantine the great for him being baptized on his deathbed. He was baptized by an Arian Bishop one of his close friends Eusebius of Nicomedia with this some question whether he was baptized as a Christian or an Arian(Hanson).
A group we should be familiar with are the Jehovah witnesses, This group started debatably in 1879 with the creation of the Herald of the Morning which became the “watch tower”. They will openly admit “Christ is God's Son and is inferior to Him”("Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site"). The Jehovah witnesses also say this about Jesus, “Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he came to earth. He is called the firstborn or Son of God because God created Jesus by Himself. God used Jesus as the master worker in creating all other things in Heaven and Earth”(Zacharias 70).
They say that Jesus was a mighty god but not the Almighty God who is Jehovah. The bible to them clearly says there is one God so Jesus can not be God as God is God and they greatly lean on the fact He is called the Son of God to show that He is not God but lesser to Him. So their defense for this comes from the saying that God sent Jesus so then He has to be lower then Jehovah. The affirm that the early Christians taught this about Jesus also and the Trinity was a Heresy (Zacharias 73).
We clearly see the echoes of the teachings of Arius in this group openly taught today. It brings millions of people into and gains more daily. So can we say that Arius's teachings died? It would seem we can not. I will move to the opponent of Arius who is named Athanasius.
Athanasius lived from 296 -372 A.D. In his early years he was around a lot of the bishops and other higher officials in his city. There is a story of him looking out a window just after a religious function waiting on some of the clergy to meet him, and he saw a few boy imitating baptisms. He called for the boys to come to him and discovered that one of the boys was playing the part of the bishop and baptizing his friends and Athanasius told the boys that all of them should prepare themselves for the life of a clergyman. I his youth he was very well educated in grammar and rhetoric.
We have accounts of the way he looked and acted :
“He was slightly below the middle height, spare in build, but well-knit, and intensely energetic. He had a finely shaped head, set off with a thin growth of auburn hair, a small but sensitively mobile mouth, an aquiline nose, and eyes of intense but kindly brilliancy. He had a ready wit, was quick in intuition, easy and affable in manner, pleasant in conversation, keen, and, perhaps, somewhat too unsparing in debate. He was endowed with a sense of humor that could be as mordant. We had almost said as sardonic as it seems to have been spontaneous and unfailing; and his courage was of the sort that never falters, even in the most disheartening hour of defeat”(Clifford).
While still a deacon he wrote two a apologetical works; he was very focused on keeping the faith pure from heresy. While still a deacon he was the personal secretary and advisor of Alexander. He played a more background role in dealing with the Arian heresy because he was not a bishop but he did hold sway because Alexander did take what he said into account. By the time of the council of Nicea,
Athanasius was a Presbyter in the Alexandrian church.
In 328 Alexander was dying and wanted Athanasius to be his successor and even though Athanasius was young not even meeting the required age of thirty, he still was elected because of his strong faith and capabilities. So he took the highest office in all of the East not just a bishop but an archbishop of Alexandria (Moyer, 21).
As a bishop his life became that of every other bishop of the east; with pastoral visits, synods, sending letters around, preaching, and going to the church functions that happened. He helped in establishing the church in Ethiopia having a friend sent there by the name of Frumentius.
Frumentius lived from 300-383, his story goes that in his younger years his uncle took him and his brother Edesius from Tyre on a trip to abyssinia which is Ethiopia, There the boys were captured and forced into slavery but they won the kings confidence and favor and were given a place of trust; given an education and also allowed to preaching Christianity to the people. Later on, the boys went to Alexandria and asked Athanasius to send Missionaries to Abyssinia. Edesius went back to Tyre and was ordained a priest and Frumentius was consecrated as bishop and head of the Abyssinian church. He established his Episcopal See at Axum the capital of Abyssinia and baptized the new king and established many churches (Moyer, 156).
Once Eusebius of Nicomedia came back from exile, he started an attack on Athanasius bringing accounts before a tribunal; not being the right age when he was made a bishop, forcing a tax on linen in his area, he messed up some priests ministry but the person was not found, and last that he killed someone and cut the body up and used in for rituals of magic. The veridic was against Athanasius and we seeing this happening a few times to the poor bishop. He would be allowed back and then tossed out again. There is a story of how dramatic he was to find justice. The story goes that Constantine was hunting and from the woods Athanasius stepped out. The Emperor was shocked and had to have others around him affirm that this was Athanasius and not some impostor but they told him it was and Athanasius said this "Give me a just tribunal, or allow me to meet my accusers face to face in your presence." His request was granted but again the verdict was given without him present to defend himself (Clifford).
This as I have said previously kept happening to him. So he would have to come back and then run and hide again. This would keep up for quite some time. He was no longer a young man when this was happening to him but he never backed down.
Athanasius is championed as the great defender of the faith. In his four discourses against Arians he speaks about the eternality of the Son. He points out that the Arains are of a wicked nature for twisting the doctrine of the Trinity because he hold that the Son has always been just as the Father, and the Spirit have always been. He noted in the wording of the Arians Doctrine of Christ being a creating being that there is a inconstancy that the Son would have to be and not be at the same time. Then he notes that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. This of course is taken form the Gospel of John 1:1 and this adds to show that the Son has to have been by this verse. There is not place for the idea of the Son being created before time (Robertson 312-313).
He goes in depth in the scriptures showing tat Jesus was the Son of God and not some created being but equally God. Like when Jesus said that Him and the Father are one because in the Arian belief this could not truly being because the true essence of the Father would be hidden from the Son, and this Son would only think that He and the Father are one. Another point made by Athanasius is that how did everything come to be without the Son who is the Word. Some of the teachings of Ariaus points to the Son being before times and after other times and those other times need him to be if He is the Word of God. So Athanasius points out that the Son needs have always been just as the Father or the way time work's becomes very lost (Robertson 313-314).
Some of the other problems brought up are that the Arians say that by the way we hold the Trinity it makes the Father and the Son really Brothers. The Athanasius points out that the Son and the Father do not come from the same pre-existing origin but that the Father is the Origin and the Son comes from Him, But this makes Him everything the Father is unlike that of the Arian view. He also notes that it was not like the Son needed anything added to Him as the Arian views says could have happened and that the Son was not begotten as man from man as to be later then the Father. He continues to note that just as man is born in generations and imperfect the Son is Eternal and perfect. He goes on by saying those who say that the Son had a tie not been then they Rob God of his Word and wisdom. This is like saying light at some point had no radiance or that at some point a fountain was barren and dry because what is the Father without His Word and Wisdom. Then Athanasius take it once step further by saying that the Arians really have no reason to call the Son the Son because because He is not of the Essence of God but more like the angels. So he says that the Arians should not call Him the Son but they do so they will not be openly condemned.(Robertson 314-315)
He moves to some of the objections of others that say could not the Son have a son. He says that this wicked idea is like asking who is the father of the Father and this can not be because the Father has and always will be the Father and can not be the son just as the Son will always be the Son and can not be the father.(Robertson 319)
In Athanasius Second Discourse from Proverbs 8:22 to show that the Son who is the Word is no work that this also must mean He is not a creature that was created. He also shows how the Arians said that the Son was a creature but not as other creatures; a work but not as the other works; an offspring but not as the other offspring. So Athanasius shows how they are grasping at the air trying to find something where they can hold their beliefs. Not completely destroy the Sons image. He also move into show that by saying not as other offspring brings into the question that did the Father have other sons and if so where does that really just Jesus. He moves on to say that if Jesus is truly the only Son as seen in the orthodox view of the Trinity let Him be confessed the Son but if He is like the rest of the creation let Him be just placed as that and nothing more (Robertson 358-359).
In Discourse Four Athanasius uses the Gospel of John 1:1 to show that the Son and Father are both eternal. The Son finds His eternality in the Father but because the Father has always been so the Son and the Godhead can not be broken. So we then maintain One beginning of the Godhead. The Godhead is connected in essence and subsistence and can not be broken apart and the heretics do as He points out the Arains do and thereby robbing the Son of any Godhood. He also keeps pointing that the Son can not subsist by himself because then Him and the Father would be two different beings but because the Son proceeds from the Father He has always been just as the Father has always been (Robertson 433-434).
The council of Nicea was called by Constantine to deal with the problems going on in the church at this time, it started in twenty of May 325 A.D. At this council Eusebius of Caesarea tried to present Arian teaching in creedal form.
Eusebius of Caesarea lived from 260- 340 A.D. He was born in Palestine and got his education in Antioch and Caesarea. He found a great teacher and friend in Pamphilius who died later in 309 A.D. This left Eusebius around the age of forty-nine where he ended up imprisoned in Egypt and we lose track of him for quite some time. He shows up later in 315 A.D. And he was a very learned man who had his focus on being a historian. He had great favor with the Emperor but during these time he sided with the Arian party of the church. Eusebius played a very middle of the road game through his life in not taking a full stance for either side. He tried not to let himself be pinned down in nay category completely. His famous work is his History of the Church which gives us information about the church for three hundred odd number years (Moyer, 136-137).
Let me move to the creed that was put forth before the council of Nicaea. It went by the name of Caesarean creed (Hall, 128-129)
“We believe in one God, Father almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, The Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Only begotten Son, Firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was incarnate, and live among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day,and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge living and the dead. And we believe in one Holy Spirit.”(Hall,129)
We see in this creed touches of Arianism but they have been very skillfully hidden inside the Orthodox wording of the creed. The bishops who were present and read this creed were so offended by it that they ripped it up and demanded a new one to be written even though Constantine was ready to accept the creed, The Bishop said otherwise and had a new one written that displayed true orthodoxy. I think this case show how much power Constantine really had in this council which was to be allowed to voice his opinion but the bishops pointed to the true orthodox doctrine (Hall,129).
We need to see what the council chose to do with Arius and his statements. This is the core statement from the council.
“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father , through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing ; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance, or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes” ( Leclercq).
We can see the strong attack on Arianism here in the second part of this statement, that all the bishops but five at the council signed. We see the changes made in the creedal statement from the council of Nicea and the Caesarean creed. The first, would lead to a growth of arianism in the church and made it unstoppable. The latter shows how Arainism is wrong and puts it directly that if you hold these beliefs you are cut out from the church and there will be no hope left for you. This council did deal with other issues in the church apart from the Arain heresy such as the recognition of the Cannon, dealing with clergy issues of order and ministry, and other things dealing with worship and how to deal with people who have been excommunicated (Leclercq).
I will be making a defense of the orthodox stance of Christology which was held by Athanasius and the council of Niecea. The gospel of John 1:1-4 says this “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (NKJV). We see here that the Word was God and if Jesus was the Word then He is God. The Arains would have to say this Scripture is worthless by saying the Jesus was not fully God but still God. We can see how foolish this can get. I think Irenaus says it well “Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses and who was also manifested to the fathers”(Bercot 95). We see that the Church Fathers saw that Jesus was truly God and this is why Arius openly opposed the history that was giving to him and only looked at the views of one of the Church Fathers, which he took out of context. The Father taken out of context is Origen because of some of his writings but lets look at what he says about the Son being created or not. “The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit”(Bercot,105) We see here that Origen did not think that Jesus was created but has always been. So we see that even Arius did not look at Origens teachings close enough but just took his teacher Lucian's word.
Matthew 3:16-17 says “When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”(NKJV). We see all three parts of the Trinity present here at the baptism of Jesus. Alexander of Alexandria points out that the Father is uncreated and has always been and from Him the Son comes from Him but he was not created. He is begotten and He was completely God (Bercot,103). The Arians teach that Jesus was created by the Father and given the right to be the head of all. This is not true because He was not given these things but they were His to begin with.
As Novatian says that there can not be two Gods coming from the same beginning. The Father has no Beginning and therefore the Son is timeless (Bercot,102) We see that as long at the Father has been so has the Son and Holy Spirit.
John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”(NKJV) This statement I AM is in reference to when Moses spoke with God through the burning bush. Jesus is calming equality with God and this is why the Jews wanted to stone him. If ee was not equal with the Father Jesus could not legitimately say I AM. Alexander of Alexandria points clearly to this when he says that he Son and Father have always been together and the Jesus was not begotten as we see time because it is an unholy thought to say there was a time that the wisdom of God did not exist or that the power of God was not around during some point of time. The Son does not brought into being as normal human sons are (Bercot, 107).
I think Alexander of Alexandria makes a good point when he says that the Arians are foolish by saying that if their view is not held then there has to be two Gods or that Jesus is from the things that are not. Alexander points out that this is not the case but the truth is in the middle that all things were created out of nothing. Jesus was not because He was begotten of the true Father Himself (Bercot,110). In Colossians 2:9 it says “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” We see here that if it is true that everything that is God was in him then Jesus has to be completely God and part of that is self sustaining which would case the Arians to bow out at because the Father made Jesus in their view of things which Origen speaks again when he says” The Son is not different from the Father in Substance”(Bercot,112). We see that Jesus is of same substance as the Father and again I want to point out if this is the case then this would make Him everything that the Father is and again we will see that the Arians have failed in their understanding of who Jesus is as the Son of God because He is Light of Light and very God of very God as the Niece creed does speak.
There are differences in personal attributes we can look at 1 Corinthians 8:6 “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” (NKJV) In the person of Jesus and He is the Son and the Father is the Father. We also call the Son the Word of God this is another personal attribute given to Him. Something else Jesus is called is the first born. The last thing I will take form Alexander of Alexandria is that Jesus is the only begotten Son which is completely true and that there was never a time that the Father was without the Son nor a time when the Son was without the Father. (Bercot, 121)
There is a difference in order between the Fathers and Son lets look at Matthew 20:23 “So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” (NKJV) We see here that the Father has chose this who will be at this place and the Son accepts this in His submission to the Father. Also lets look at 1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”(NKJV) Lets see what Irenaeus says about the order of the Father and the Son. “ The Son performs the good pleasure of the Father. For the Father sends, and the Son is sent , and comes..” (Bercot, 122) We see that the Son is submissive to the Father's will and it is His joy to do what the Father asks of him what ever it may be an good picture for this is that Jesus was sent to die for us and Jesus was happy to come and save us. I think that Irenaeus again points out this order of relationship between the Father and Son again. “For His Offspring and His Image do minister to Him in every respect. That is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom whom all the angels serve and to whom they are subject.”(Bercot,122) This shows that the Son ministers to the Father Just as the angels minster to the Son but this does not mean that the Son is like the angel in that He is a created being or that He is not fully God because in His essence He is God but how the Son relates to the Father and how the Father relates to Him.
An overview of what this paper has gone over is the fact that Arius started the belief system of Arianism that believes that Jesus was a created being before the World came to be and is under the Father and not truly part of His essence. Athanasius was the main opponent to Arianism after Alexander of Alexandra died. He lead that battle against the heresy of Arianism and showed the folly of it and that the Trinity is the correct view of how the Father, Son, and Spirit are connected in essence. The Son is begotten and not created. I personally find that the views of Arius were well formed but they still lacked an honest study of the Scriptures and of the Fathers and this is why Arius walked right into the heresy that he did so easily. So then as a true Christians we can say Amen to the council of Nicea and its defense of the Trinity.

Works Cited:

Arius, . "fourth century Christianity." Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia. 2009. iwisconsin Lutheran College, Web. 16 Nov 2009. .
Bercot, David. A dictionary of early christian beliefs. Peabody, mass: Hendrickson, 1998. 95. Print.

Clifford, Cornelius. "St. Athanasius." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 18 Nov. 2009 .

"Confession of faith from Arius and his followers to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria." fourth century christianity. 2009. Wisconsin Lutheran College, Web. 13 Nov 2009. .

Hall, Stuart. Doctrine and practice in the early church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans publishing, 1999. 123. Print.

Hanson, Mackenzie. "What is Arian Catholicism?." Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. 2006. The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Web. 16 Nov 2009. .

Holy Bible. Nashville, Tennesssee: Thoman Nelson, 1982. Print.

Hunter, david, and susan harvey. the ocford handbok of early christian studies. New York: Oxford university pub, 2008. 240. Print.

Leclercq, Henri. "The First Council of Nicaea." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 21 Nov. 2009 .

Moyer, Elgin. Who was who in church history. New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats publishing, 1974. 257. Print.

Robertson, Archibald. The nicene and Post nicene Fathers, Athanasius. vol 4. Oxford: Eerdmans publishing, 312-313. Print.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian church. vol. 1. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997. 255. Print.

"What Do They Believe?." Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. 2000. Jehovah's Witnesses , Web. 16 Nov 2009. .

Zacharias, Ravi. The kingdom of the Cults. 2nd. Grand Rapids: Bethany house publishers, 2003. 70. Print.

Appendix

This is to tell about the Fathers I used in my Paper.

Origen- Lived from 185-255 A.D. Was a student of Clement of Alexandria and took over the School in Alexandria after Clement had to flee for his life. Origen is thought by many as the father of Christina theology. (Bercot, xix)

Irenaeus - lived from 130-200 A.D. And was a student of Polycarp and later in his life he became the bishop of Lyons. He wrote many defense of this christian faith.(Bercot, xvii)

Novatian – We know when he died 257 A.D. But not when he was born. He was a Roman presbyter and wrote several theological works. (Bercot, xviii)

my sermon for the first sunday after trinity

2009-06-15T20:19:00.000-07:00

Bread and wine to flesh and blood!

A story about the power of the holy blessed sacrament!

On the 17th of December, 1899, the fast mail on the way from Bordeaux to Paris met with a collision. In the mail car was a post office express clerk, Gabriel Gargam, thirty years old. At the time of the wreck the train was going at the speed of fifty miles an hour. By the crash Gargam was thrown fifty-two feet. He was terribly bruised and broken and paralyzed from the waist down. He was barely alive when lifted onto a stretcher. Taken to a hospital, his existence for some time was a living death. After eight months he had wasted away to a mere skeleton, weighing but seventy-eight pounds, although normally a big man. His feet became gangrenous. He could take no solid food and was obliged to take nourishment by a tube. Only once in twenty-four hours could he be fed even that way.

Gargam's condition was pitiable in the extreme. He could not help himself even in the most trifling needs. Two trained nurses were needed day and night to assist him. Previous to the accident, Gargam had not been to church for fifteen years. His aunt, who was a nun of the Order of the Sacred Heart, begged him to go to Lourdes. He refused. She continued her appeals to him to place himself in the hands of Our Lady of Lourdes. He was deaf to all her prayers. After continuous pleading of his mother he consented to go to Lourdes. It was now two years since the accident, and not for a moment had he left his bed all that time. He was carried on a stretcher to the train. The exertion caused him to faint, and for a full hour he was unconscious. They were on the point of abandoning the pilgrimage, as it looked as if he would die on the way, but the mother insisted, and the journey was made.

Arrived at Lourdes, he was carried to the miraculous pool and tenderly placed in its waters--no effect. Rather a bad effect resulted, for the exertion threw him into a swoon and he lay apparently dead. On the way back they saw the procession of the Blessed Sacrament approaching. They stood aside to let it pass, having placed a cloth over the face of the man whom they supposed to be dead.

As the priest passed carrying the Sacred Host, he pronounced Benediction over the sorrowful group around the covered body. Soon there was a movement from under the covering. To the amazement of the bystanders, the body raised itself to a sitting posture. While the family were looking dumbfounded and the spectators gazed in amazement, Gargam said in a full, strong voice that he wanted to get up. He got up and stood erect, walked a few paces and said that he was cured. The multitude looked in wonder, and then fell on their knees and thanked God for this new sign of His power at the shrine of His Blessed Mother. For two years hardly any food had passed his lips but now he sat down to the table and ate a hearty meal.

On August 20th, 1901, sixty prominent doctors examined Gargam. Without stating the nature of the cure, they pronounced him entirely cured. Gargam, out of gratitude to God in the Holy Eucharist and His Blessed Mother, consecrated himself to the service of the invalids at Lourdes. Fifteen years after his miraculous cure he was still engaged in his strenuous and devoted work. He was for years a living, visible testimony of the supernatural.

John 6:53-56- Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Before this was said about 1500 years before was a great miracle. The People of God ate Manna in the wilderness for forty year as it says

Exodus 16:30-31 - So the people rested on the seventh day.
And the house of Israel called its name Manna. And it was like white coriander seed, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.

35-And the children of Israel ate manna forty years, until they came to an inhabited land; they ate manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.

This bread keep them alive in a strange land till they made it to the land God had given them. It gave them strength, it gave encouragement that God was with them still even though they failed many times, It was a grace given to them because they stood unworthy before God to receive anything but out of his mercy He gave it to them, and another things it was a way they communed with God.

Now our blessed lord says this to what happened to them in response to a Jew speaking about how their fathers ate manna in the wilderness.

John 6:32-35 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

The fact Jesus can say this is that He is our everlasting bread and drink. He will never stop after forty years He keeps going and once we have reached our promised land He is still the one who sustains us. He is the true Manna from heaven and He will never go away from us.

What does that looking like to us today?

John 6:51 - I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

We call this holy flesh and blood the Eucharist. This means thanks giving in the Greek. The Eucharist is the sum of our faith. We have creation, the fall, and redemption shown to us within the Eucharist. Because seeing how the Eucharist is Jesus and Jesus was are creator, redeemer, and sanctifier.

The church has celebrated the Eucharist since the days of the apostles since they were the ones the Lord commanded to celebrate the Eucharist. We have done this ever since that time.

Origen says this about the Eucharist. “ we also eat the bread presented to us. And this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.”

“We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread that we call the Eucharist.”

When does that change happen from bread and wine to the real flesh and blood of Christ?

During that cannon of the Mass when the words of institution are spoken over the elements and by the power of the Holy Spirit. The words of institution are:

Matthew 26:26 -28 - And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

This time is when you see the celebrant kneeling and lifting up the host and the chalice.

Are we re-sacrificing Christ? No we are connecting into the moment when the sacrifice happened.

In Revelation 13:8 we read “All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

This would mean before time but yet He died 2000 years ago how can this be said? Because this death surpasses time and that is why we connect into it during the mass. So that is why we can say that we are not re-sacrificing The Christ.

What are the benefits of partaking of the Eucharist?

•The Eucharist reinforces our union of the blessed Lord Jesus Christ because for He who abides in Him will drink His blood and eat His flesh. This is part of our fellowship with Christ.

St. Cyprian says that the Eucharist does this. “They drink the cup of Christ’s blood daily, for the reason that they themselves also may be able to shed their blood for Christ.”

This shows the belief that our Holy Communion strengthens us by the grace within it. And because we are part of Him who died for you we are able to lay down our lives for His sake.

• The Eucharist also separates us from sin because Christ forgives sin and we are partaking of Christ. This is why we have the general confession before the Eucharist it gives us time to tell the Lord we are seeking forgiveness of our sins. Which we find within partaking of communion in a worth manner. The sins that are forgive are only temporal sin we still must use the sacrament of absolution to deal with mortal sins.

• Another thing that happens if that it unites us to the mystical body. Just as the Lord prayed in

John17:11 “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.”

St. Augustine said this “ O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of Charity!”

We are united to all those who partake of the Eucharist truly and we are one body. Those in Africa, south America, Russia, Rome, England, Australia and the list can go on. We are united to the living and “dead” (if they can be called that) Christians.

• The taking of the Eucharist should make want to help the poor.

St. John Chrysostom said “ You have tasted the blood of the Lord, yet you do no recognize your brother,… You dishonor this table”

• The last thing it does is that it’s a picture of the wedding feast of the Lamb of heaven. It also shows the Lord is coming even now but He is veiled and we wait for the day when He comes unveiled.

The last thing we need to look at is the subject of taking the Eucharist unworthily.

Matthew 5: 23-24 - “Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”

We need to be in a state that we have forgiven others for their mistakes against us and that those we have hurt have forgiven us. This is one of the greatest strengths of Christianity, the fact we forgive each other.

Do you have someone you need to seek forgiveness from?

Do you have someone you need to forgive?

As a Christians these are thing that need to natural and something we want to do because our blessed Lord forgave us! So we have no right not to forgive someone else!

Listen to what to those who took the Eucharist unworthily.

1 Corinthians 11:27-32 - Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Origen says this “ that which is sanctified through the word of God and by prayer does not (by its own nature) sanctify the one who uses it. Otherwise, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord. In that case, no one on account of this food would become weak, sickly, or asleep… accordingly, in the case of the bread of the Lord, there is an advantage to him who uses it only when he partakes of the bread with undefiled mind and pure conscience.”

St. Cyprian says this about the un-baptized “What a crime is theirs who rashly seize communion and touch the body and blood of the Lord… even though their foulness is not washed away by the laver of the church for it is written, “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”

As we can plainly see that taking the Eucharist is no joking matter and it should be done with the utmost caution. For those who are baptized but those who aren’t even baptized need to not even touch it for it could be dangerous for their souls. This is why we don’t let non baptized Christians take communion. This is a precaution that the Church has set into place for their safety.

Those of us who are baptized need to make sure we have found forgiveness of other and that we have forgiven others before we take communion. This is one reason some churches during the “peace” pass the peace to each other. It looks like this. The priest says “the peace of the Lord be with you” Then people respond “ and with thy spirit” then they turn to one another in the congregation and say “the peace of the Lord be with you” while shaking hand or want ever may be appropriate within that church.

So know that we are partaking of the very real flesh and Blood of the Lord. Which was giving for us on Calvary. But we need to be careful not to take it lightly because it can harm us should we take it unworthily, but if we do take it worthily it holds many blessing and honors.

Pentecost!!!

2009-05-30T14:08:00.000-07:00

*Collect*
God, who as at this time
taught the hearts of your faithful people
by sending to them the light of your Holy Spirit:
grant us by the same Spirit
to have a right judgment in all things
and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort;
through the merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

Come Holy fire come! burn away sin, error, and heresy. Make your Church and People God holy and pure!

Dope for the Cope

2009-03-26T16:14:00.000-07:00

So this is easily my favorite vestment of all times.

here is the new start......

2009-01-02T15:41:00.001-08:00

What is this? Because it not Anglican. Look at Bishop Iker in the back during the song along with the guy to his left not singing because they know this is foolish and not Catholic. Now look at about 20mins into the video you will see the bishop in the upper right screen falling asleep.

God help us! The Anglican church has gone crazy! It wishes to recreate worship and make the church into something thats not Catholic. Not saying that The mainline church is any better because it's not it's worse.

Huuummmm.... is it time to jump the Euphrates river and go East? Time will tell!

2008-11-16T19:36:00.000-08:00

The views of the Lords supper

1 Corinthians 11:27-28 “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” (NKJV)

There are five predominate views of the Lords supper and all of them differ greatly on what is believed to be going on while we take communion. The words Eucharist, Communion, or Lord’s Supper all refer to the same thing.

Transubstantiation- This view is held within the Roman Catholic Church and some Anglo-Catholic churches. This view was developed over the 13^th and 15^th centuries and was finally made church dogma in the council of Trent (1545-63) (transubstantiation). This view states that the bread and wine after the words of institution ( Matthew 26:26-28) have been said change into the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. (Pohle) This can only be done by someone of the rank within the clergy of priest of higher.

Some of the Scriptures they use to defend this view point are:

(1 Corinthians 11:23 sqq and John 6:26 sqq). The big point on this is that of the words this is my body and this is my blood and those who believe in this take it as meaning that the elements must change as Christ had said and why else would the people leave him in the sixth chapter of John unless it was to be taken literally. There are more area of defense that can be brought up but this is just introduction to the different view points of believers. (Pohle)

Some of the church fathers they will use to defend this stance are Ignatius, Justin martyr, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, and Lamy. (Pohle)

Church father Justin Martyr said this:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone.” (Of the Eucharist)

I find this view to define a mystery to much and take away the mystical elements that have been place in Christendom. So we don’t think we can know everything on this side of heaven. One point can be made of the trinity we don’t know everything about it but yet we still believe it and uphold it as something that must be believed to be an orthodox Christian. So I feel that in trying to explain a mystery we have robbed an element of faith within the church. I believe this comes from the Aristotelian categorical system of logic we in the west hold to in many ways and the view of Transubstantiation is one of the end results of understanding.

Objective reality- the Eastern Orthodox Church and some Anglo-Catholics hold this view. This is very similar to the view of Transubstantiation but it hold that those thing which are explain in that view have gone to far and should not have done that. They still use the same scriptural evidence as those of Transubstantiation. Just as the view of Transubstantiation believes only the clergy with the rank of priest of higher can do this it is believe the same for Objective reality.

“In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.” (Holy Eucharist)

So as we can see from the quote from the Orthodox church in America they see the developments of Transubstantiation to be just over human rationalism. They say this about the other views such as Memoralism.

“The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the Eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and Holy Communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the Eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.” (Holy Eucharist)

So it can’t be denied that those who hold the view of objective reality hold the Eucharist in high regard but just explain it or should be said lack of explaining it as others do. I think it is a view that is seldom heard of and because of that it is paid little attention to. I think it can give those who don’t want to accept transubstantiation but don’t want to bring communion down to a more early thing can find peace here.

Here is something’s from a church fathers:

“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." (Against Heresies)

"We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice." ("Catecheses," 22, 9; "Myst." 4)

Consubstantiation- This view says that when a ministry consecrates the elements the bread and wine stay what they are but it is spiritual the body and blood of Christ within the elements. Those who believe in this view think that this happens when the words of institution ( Matthew 26:26-28) are said over the elements. Unlike the other two previous views this one hold that there is no need to be in apostolic succession and be an ordained priest to consecrate the elements. This is because it is believed that it is the words that change the elements not the person and words. (What is consubstantiation? )

“The change from Trans- to Con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix Trans- says that a change took place, the bread actually became the body of Jesus and the wine actually became the blood of Jesus. The prefix Con- says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the physical bread so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the wine so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.” (What is consubstantiation?)

The scriptural proof for this belief is basically what the other two have said but change the literal Into a spiritual aspect so there isn’t much inside this view that would have much changed. Mostly Lutherans hold this view but some Anglican and even Eastern orthodox churches will hold it.

Pneumatic or real presence – This view states that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ; this is a spiritual thing and only applies to those who have faith. This view and the Objective reality view are similar but the objective reality view says it is the true body and blood where as this one leaves it in a bigger mystery (Communion/Eucharist). This view was started by John Calvin and keeps moving through today in the reformed communities.

John Calvin said this about it

“But those who partake by faith receive benefit from Christ, and the unbelieving are condemned by partaking. By faith , and in the Holy Spirit, the partaker beholds God incarnate, and in the same sense touches him with hands, so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ's presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in.” (Real Presence)

Most reformed churches and low Anglican churches hold this view. Because it comes from their great teachers beliefs, so they are just following suit.

I find this view to be left to be too open and needing to explain a bit more of what it is trying to say. I think we need mystery but to much just leave us with nothing to really say. I think many people hold this view with out knowing it.

Memorialism- This view says that the bread and wine stay what they are that is to say the bread is bread and the wine is wine nothing is changed or going on. These items only bring to remembrance the death of Christ and His sacrifice for us.

The defense for this view comes from the words in 1 Cor 11:24 when they say do this in remembrance so those who believe in this view say that if this is the case then nothing is going on at all but a simple remembrance of Christ’s death.

This shows when Zwingli was coming from in this view:

“Zwingli interpreted the words of Jesus, "This is my body," in harmony with John 6, where Jesus spoke of eating and drinking his body and blood, especially vs. 63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail." Therefore, he reasoned, not only is transubstantiation, that somehow Christ is corporeally in, under, and with the elements. The doctrine of physical eating is absurd and repugnant to common sense. Moreover, God does not ask us to believe that which is contrary to sense experience. The word "is" in the words of institution means "signifies," or "represents," and must be interpreted figuratively, as is done in other "I am" passages in the Bible. Christ's ascension means that he took his body from earth to heaven.” (Last Supper, Lord's Supper )

This was problematic for Zwingli and Luther because this differing view on the Lords supper caused the great split between the two men that never was fixed and the battles still are waged today between the two beliefs children of today.

This view I find to rob the sanctity of communion because it destroys the worth of it and I think that you need to read into the scriptures to see this view because if we look at that the Holy Writ says it plainly says that it is His body and blood so we take this at face value it mean what it says or we play word games then come up with it meaning nothing beyond what we make it.

I do feel strongly that my convictions about objective reality are correct but I don’t want to just write off those who hold to something different. I think that by talking about out different view we will eventually figure out who is right in their views and come to the same place. This takes time as we can see that for over five hundred years we have been debating and no one agrees yet but we can keep going till we do.

Works cited:

Fouts, Ryan. "Last Supper, Lord's Supper." 11/12/2008 16 Nov 2008 .

Holy Bible NKJV. Nashville: Thomas nelson, 1982.

"Holy Eucharist." 1996-2008 10 Nov 2008 .

Justin Martyr, "Of the Eucharist." Christian classics ethereal library. 16 Nov 2008 .

legna, michael. "Communion/Eucharist." 09/02/2007 16 Nov 2008 .

Pohle, Joseph. "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 10 Nov. 2008 .

"Real Presence." 2008 16 Nov 2008 .

St. Cyril of Alexandria, ""Catecheses," 22, 9; "Myst." 4." The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence. 2000-2008. 16 Nov 2008 .

St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies." THE REAL PRESENCE The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 16 Nov 2008 .

"transubstantiation." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Nov. 2008 .

"What is consubstantiation?." 2002-2008 15 Nov 2008 http://www.gotquestions.org/

. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm Justin's 1st Apology, LXVI

2008-10-14T15:48:00.001-07:00

So everyone I have been very busy with school this is why I haven’t been writing as of late.

I have given myself to under take the task of studying the vestments of the Anglo-Catholic branch of the Church. I hope to have this done soon.

One last thought the Church is our mother and how kind she is! Think about this for the next week

Written by:

Allen Bailey: aspirant of the Anglican province of America

2008-09-13T18:27:00.000-07:00

This is Just a fun jab at everyone you need to be able to laugh at yourself sometimes!!!

The Anglicans sit up in their ivory towers

The Baptists bring people to the water but don’t believe anything happens

The Roman Catholic Church missed the meaning of Catholic being universal

The Eastern Orthodox Church didn’t realize that orthodoxy came to the west also

The Lutherans Hate the idea of Saint Worship but they really really really venerate his holiness Martin Luther

The Methodists follow John Wesley but left his church.

The Non-denominational Churches are now a denomination unto themselves

The Pentecostals have the Spirit but seem to be missing the fruit of self-control

The Presbyterians have their deuteron canonical texts of confessions

The Church of Christ has the creed of no creed but Christ

The Mennonite and Amish missed the idea that “in the world not of it” didn’t mean leave.

The Messianic Jews didn’t get when St. Paul said we are all the seed of Abraham if we believe in Christ.

The Seventh-Day Adventists must of missed that Jesus rose on Sunday

The Assemblies of God don’t realize that the rest of us assemble under God also

Sometimes it’s Just good to step back and laugh at yourself!!!

Written by:

Allen Bailey: aspirant of the Anglican province of America

2008-09-03T19:26:00.001-07:00

This is about N.T. Wright and his sad state of mind.

This is from the Washington post website

Let Women Lead and Let Church be Church

No, it isn't hypocritical. There might well be perfectly coherent guidelines as to why a woman might lead in one area and not in another. It isn't hypocritical, after all, to think that the church is not just 'another human organization' or a society like any other; it's Christian common sense.

I happen to believe that women can and should exercise leadership at all levels in the church, but I would argue the point, not on the grounds that 'that's what happens in society', but on the grounds that from the resurrection onwards women were involved at the very heart of the apostolic ministry, telling the world the good news that Jesus was and is alive.

Posted by Nicholas T. Wright on September 3, 2008 2:18 AM

(http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/nicholas_t_wright/2008/09/let_women_lead_and_let_church.html)

So I wasn’t sure how far gone this bishop was but his true colors have shown. He is as liberal as the next and here I thought this was one some what good bishop in England.

*Oh God what shall we do? After each day passes we see more and more liberalism from the Anglican Church.*

Written by:

Allen Bailey: aspirant of the Anglican province of America

-Haereticum Opprimo-

2008-08-31T18:38:00.001-07:00

When and where did the Anglican Church start?

The word Anglican came from Anglicanus, which came from Anglicus "of the English people, of England” (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Anglican, 08/31/08

So The Anglican church is the Church of England and those connected to that heritage in the United States of America it is called The Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal church means that it adherent to the Episcopal form of church government. This also can be called the rule of Bishops. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/episcopalian , 08/31/08)

The assumption of most is to believe that the Anglican Church started in the Reformation in the 1530’s because King Henry VIII wanted a divorce but this is a common misconception.

For those who believe in the above you need to look at this

Nobody knows when Christianity first reached England. According to a medieval legend, Joseph of Arimathea, who was given custody of Christ's body, built a church at Glastonbury in Somerset. Another legend tells of a British king called Lucius, who is said to have written to the Pope in the year 156 to obtain a conversion to Christianity.

Although there is little or no evidence to support these stories, it is quite possible that Christianity reached England not long after Christ's execution. At that time Britain and Judaea were both part of the Roman Empire. And the Empire's road and sea communications enabled new ideas to travel a long way fast.

By the middle of the third century Christianity had established a foothold here. This was noted by the African church father Tertullian and the Middle Eastern theologian Origen. According to the seventh century historian Bede, the Britons preserved the Christian faith until the Great Persecution instigated by the Emperor Diocletian in 303.

Ten years later the Edict of Milan gave full freedom of worship to Christians throughout the Roman Empire. This enabled three British bishops to attend a church council at Arles in France. Forty-five years later British bishops attended another council at Rimini in Italy.( http://www.hadland.me.uk/tvp/tvp1.htm, 08/31/08)

“There is no doubt that true Christian faith was well established by 3I4 A.D. British bishops were present at the Council of Nicea [325 A.D.], out of three hundred British bishops were present at the Council of Nicea, out of three hundred and eighteen bishops at this Council only ten were from the Latin-speaking church.”

(http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=pilgrims)

Here is some quote stating that Christianity was in Britain by the late 2^nd century

Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity… After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustratious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extreme limits of the west. [Britain was the westernmost province of the Roman Empire] Clement or Rome 96A.D.(Bercot, 79)

By this time…[the name Christ has reached] the various confines of the moors, all the limits of Spain, the diverse nations of the Gaul’s, and the hunts of the Britons, inaccessible to the Romans, but subjected to Christ. Tertullian 197 A.D. (Bercot,80)

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the early 300s, records that "the apostles passed beyond the ocean to the Isles called the British Isles" (Demonstratio Evangelica, Bk. 3, chap. 5).

So we see that with this evidence that the Anglican Church that is to say the Church of England has been around since sometime at least by the 100’s

I would also like to point out the 3 earliest British martyrs St. Alban(?-209), Sts. Julius and Aaron(?-304)

So Christianity had to be established to have martyrs.

Next we move on to see how Rome kept trying to take power over the English church

“It seems not unlikely that Pelagianism had taken root among the Christian communities of Ireland, and it was found necessary to send a bishop to combat the heresy. Pope Celestine's choice fell on the deacon Palladius, who had taken a prominent part in stamping out the doctrine in Britain. The mission of Palladius (431-432), whom Zimmer has endeavoured to identify with Patrick, is obscure. Tradition associates his name with the mountains of Wicklow, and we are told that he retired to the land of the Picts in North Britain, where he died. Patrick probably felt great disappointment when Palladius was sent as the chosen envoy of Rome, but now Germanus seems to have decided that Patrick was the man for the task, and he was consecrated in 432.” (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Saint_Patrick)

We see that Rome was trying to make their ways and their lines of succession creep into Ireland but Briton wouldn’t have it so Patrick was sent. We also see by history that Palladius failed and was sent back home.

Then in 597 A.D. Augustine of Canterbury came to Briton and established a new Archbishopric in Canterbury. He was ordained and sent by the bishop of Rome. This was because when Briton was over run by Saxons after St Patrick’s death in the 430’s till Augustine’s arrival. The Saxons were unconverted Pagans so much of the Christian church was pushed underground but when Augustine came he reestablished it in the south first near Kent then he settled in Canterbury and the Gospel again move upward.

From this point on the English church was under the power of The Roman Bishop but the church of England always had a disobedient strek in them to not listen nor happily accept Roman rule over them.

Now one can not deny how the Church of England reclaimed its right to govern itself which was in part politically driven but because of a Churches way of breaking doesn’t make it bad or good. Allow me to point out how the English church spread the Gospel all over the world like no other Christian groups and now there is 70million plus Anglicans in the world and they are the 3^rd largest Christian group on the plant. So we see they were faithful to Christ in preaching the Gospel.

This writing is not about if the Anglican Church is good or bad but to show that it did not start in the 1530’s but some time in the 100’s.

Written by:

Allen Bailey: aspirant of the Anglican province of America

-in hoc signo vinces-

Works cited:

Bercot David , Dictionary of early Christian beliefs, 2006, Hendrickson publishing

*This has been edited since the original post*

2008-08-19T20:06:00.000-07:00

The War

“Now the Anglicans in all three groups[evangelical, Liberal, and Anglo-Catholic] are entrenched and are increasingly adamant about their own stance — and are prepared to fight the other two sides for the heart of their church.” (http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=847&category=News%20&%20Media~News)

This is from a Roman Catholic site looking at Anglicans and basically they are saying the war has started and the prize to the winner is control of the Anglican Communion.

Let’s look at each of the sides

Evangelicals are protestant in Theology, liturgy and ethos of the church. They do communion once a week to once a month, the rituals, sacraments and robes are present but seen as traditions of the church but could be done with out. They really are like Presbyterians with prayer books. They will not ordain women at all.

Liberals can have a high or low practice of liturgy, but their theology is very liberal (higher criticism type things) they are big on justice and working with the poor. They are big on science and learning. They are fine with women “ordination” to all three offices and some are fine with Homosexuals being “ordained”

Anglo-Catholics see themselves as an equal branch of the Catholic church just like Rome and the East. They can have Eastern or western Theology. They usually have a more western liturgy with splashing of the east. They can have an Eastern or Western Ethos of the church. They look very Catholic and have devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary and other saints, they go on retreats and pilgrimages, they do all seven Sacraments and say Mass every day. They see the traditions and seven ecumenical councils as having high importance in the church. They put a high stress on apostolic succession and in no way see themselves as Protestants. Some are fine with women being “ordained” to the Diaconate and priesthood but not episkopos. Where as others see that women should not be and can not be ordained at all.

This is a quick over view but these are the factions that are fighting for control of the communion.

All I can say is that this will end in a bloody battle with a church that is demolished in the end but I will admit I will stand with my conservative Anglo-Catholic brothers till the end with the hope we will finally have our chance to run the communion because the others have had their chance and both have failed.

I think we are looking at an Isaiah 6 within the Anglican communion right now.

Pray for a New Oxford Movement and that many Newman’s will rise up!!!

Isaiah 6:8

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

Now which of you will say : "Here am I. Send me!"

Tell me which of you will sign your name dedicating yourselves to a New Oxford Movement! And say here am I. Send me!

+Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus+

Written by:

Allen Bailey: aspirant of the Anglican province of America

14 of 39

2008-07-29T14:11:00.000-07:00

Article XVI

Of Sin after Baptism

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

venial sin (meaning "forgivable" sin) is a lesser sin that does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell. A venial sin involves a "temporary loss of grace" from God.

Mortal sin, according to the beliefs of Roman Catholicism, is a sin that, unless confessed and absolved (or at least sacramental confession is willed if not available), condemns a person's soul to Hell after death. These sins are considered "mortal" because they constitute a rupture in a person's link to God's saving grace: the person's soul becomes "dead", not merely weakened.

Venial sins can be forgiven by taking the Eucharist but mortal sin bars the person from taking the Eucharist and can only be forgiven by sacramental confession. Those who die in the state of mortal sin go straight to hell according to Roman catholic belief.(1)

Now in the east there is distinction between these types of sin but no name. In the east those who die in the state of what would be mortal sin are not automatically believed to be damned to hell.

So no matter how you see your sin you should have sacramental confession done to absolve you of your sin.

Written by:

Allen Bailey: aspirant of the Anglican province of America

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1035

2008-07-25T08:37:00.001-07:00

So we are seeing the greatest shaking of Anglicanism possibly ever and I want to know what everyone thinks about it or give some thoughts about what may happen with it.

I find Gafcon leading it's self into a hole which will cause it to fall apart in future years because it has alienated the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church. One large part of this is points 3,4,6,7, and 8 in the Jerusalem declaration.

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

6.We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

7.We recognize that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

8.We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

The first problem I see is that there are seven Ecumenical councils not four. This I find to be a great problem because we find that these bishops are claiming more right, authority, and orthodoxy then The Church when she was all together. The arrogance is mind boggling to me because all the church can do now is hold to what was given because the church as a whole can not come together to make a statement in council anymore. ( by The Church I mean Anglicans, Eastern orthodox and Roman Catholics) So to pick and chose what you want to call "catholic" and "true" is a very protestant action. When the church as a whole agreed on the seven councils and what they say. I find this point needing work to open up to those who hold to seven councils so they have an equal right to speak because if there is only four recognized they are shut out.

The second problem is that the 39 articles are a formulary not a creedal doctrine and those in Gafcon seem to be moving in that direction. Now as a Anglo-Catholic Faithful to the Oxford movement and the historical church of the apostles I view the articles in a greatly different way then "low church" Anglicans. So I think these elements need to be more opened to Anglo-Catholics.

The third problem is the 1662 prayer book as stated by

The Most Reverend Mark Haverland, Ph.D.

Archbishop and Acting Primate of the

Anglican Catholic Church

( http://www.anglicancatholic.org/gafcon.html)

while the 1662 Prayer Book has many strengths, it also has some notable weaknesses, including a truncated Eucharistic Canon, which the 1928 American, 1954 South African, and other later Prayer Books have corrected. We by no means assert the invalidity of any form in the 1662 book, but neither can we accept that 1662 is the central or best model for Anglican liturgy.

The fourth problem is that in point seven Gafcon did not state the Holy orders as being only male and that true apostolic succession can only be passed on in you have: 1. The proper minister (bishops in valid orders) 2. The proper Subject (A baptized Christian male That has gone through the previous orders) 3. The proper rite or ceremony of ordination (For the ordination of a bishop you historically need three bishops)4. The time ( dates that have been set for the candidates ordination) 5. The Place ( The ordination is to be done in The church)

The fifth problem I see is that the point on marriage should have shown it to be a sacramental action of the church and to be something that can only be broke upon death or in extreme cases that are deiced by the church.

The last problem I will bring up is the Catholic belief of seven sacraments not 2 greater and 5 lesser sacraments.

I think Gafcon needs to fix it's stance in the declaration to allow Anglo-Catholics a place within the newly forming province lest they are forced to form something of their own and none of us want that.

Written by:

Allen Bailey: aspirant of the Anglican province of America

2008-07-01T20:27:00.000-07:00

What shall we do?

My dear brothers what shall we do? We have fallen on hard time and in some ways I think there could be a chance things may be getting worse.

Gafcon has come together and made their decisions. This is to break with the see of Canterbury and form a new see. This group wants to see common cause partnership (ccp) become the new North American church.

The statement of the Jerusalem Declaration has Gafcon set into a 39 Articles reformation stance.

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

These beginning points are showing a great problem because they do not uphold Anglo-Catholicism which connects back to the Ancient church.

For Gafcon to say they only uphold four councils is for them to say they know better then those who came before us C.S lewis calls this chronological snobbery. Bishops have the responsibility to listen to the bishop who came before them. All Catholic believers are bound to believe all that is in the Vincentian Canon which is to say all that was believed for the first 1000 years of the church and the first 7 ecumenical councils is part of that.

The true doctrine of the church is not contained in the 39 articles but the Vincentian Canon and where the 39 articles do not oppose the canon they are right but where the 39 articles do differ from the canon they are wrong not the Vincentian Canon.

Also there needs to be a statement against women ordination, which there was not made and now there will need to be a statement from the ccp about this.

So now all my Anglo- Catholic and Anglo- Orthodox brothers what shall we do?

I fear we may be running the risk of being pushed out or at best face an exile. I for one will never let our catholic ways be pushed to the way-side.

We shall wait and see what is going to happen, but let us have our own talks about what we shall do. If Gafcon will not be a home for us. I hope it doesn’t come to us establishing a Catholic Anglican communion, but what can we do if those in power won’t hear us?

Let us pray that things will work out in time!

Let us finish the Oxford movement since Newman could not and bring the Anglican Church to its full right and glory as a branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church!

Haereticum Opprimo - crushing the heretics

Written by:

Allen Bailey; aspirant of the Anglican province of America

2008-06-19T07:25:00.000-07:00

hey everyone

Sorry for being gone for so long but I ahve been very busy. I will be starting back very soon. I hope all of you have had a blessed summer so far.

Written by:

Allen Bailey- aspirant of the Anglican province of America

Haereticum Opprimo-crushing the heretics

13 of 39

2008-06-01T17:31:00.000-07:00

XIII. Of Works before Justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Proverbs 21:4 - A haughty look, a proud heart,
And the plowingof the wicked are sin. (NKJV)

Romans 6: 19 - I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.(NKJV)

We do evil in some form before we find Christ because our hearts are in the wrong place, but once Christ is master of our lives we can do good to honor Him

Haereticum Opprimo- crushing the heretics

Written by:

Allen Bailey; aspirant of the Anglican province of America

2008-05-14T06:22:00.000-07:00

They way I pray

I just had some thought recently about the rosary and how its to be done and the way the eastern prayer rope is done. I find myself enjoying the prayer rope more because it is more Christ centered with prayers for other, scripture, prayers to the saint, and creeds around Him. Where as I find that the rosary is more Mary centered with Prayers to Christ, scripture, and creeds around her.

Rosary prayer outline:

Make the sign of the cross
Say the Apostles Creed
Say the Our Father
Say three Hail Marys
Say the Glory Be
Announce the first Mystery and say the Our Father
Say ten Hail Marys while meditating on the Mystery
Say the Glory Be
Say the O My Jesus
Announce the second Mystery and say the Our Father
Say ten Hail Marys while meditating on the Mystery
Say the Glory Be
Say the O My Jesus
Announce the third Mystery and say the Our Father
Say ten Hail Marys while meditating on the Mystery
Say the Glory Be
Say the O My Jesus
Announce the fourth Mystery and say the Our Father
Say ten Hail Marys while meditating on the Mystery
Say the Glory Be
Say the O My Jesus
Announce the fifth Mystery and say the Our Father
Say ten Hail Marys while meditating on the Mystery
Say the Glory Be
Say the O My Jesus
Say the Hail Holy Queen

Prayers of the Rosary

Sign Of The Cross

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. born of the Virgin Mary,He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; he ascended into Heaven sits at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, Amen.

Our Father

Our Father, who art in Heaven; hallowed by Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Amen

Hail Mary

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of god, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen

Glory Be

Glory be to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.

O My Jesus

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of your Mercy. Amen.

Hail, Holy Queen

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us,
And after this our exile, show unto us the blessed Fruit of they womb, Jesus.
O clement. O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us, O holy Mother of God
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Eastern prayer rope:

You say the lord Jesus Christ part on all the knots or beads and on the larger knots and beads you can prayer for someone, read scripture, prayer to a saint, or read a creed. When you start cross yourself and when you end cross yourself.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon me a sinner

*when praying for someone*

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon name

I am not saying that the rosary is wrong but for myself I find the eastern way of prayer more edifying and Christ centered!

Written by:

Allen Bailey; aspirant of the Anglican province of America

2008-05-04T18:31:00.000-07:00

Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey (1904-1988)

The 100th Archbishop of Canterbury was born in 1904, the son of Arthur Stanley Ramsey. Educated at Repton School and Magdalene College, Cambridge, he trained at Cuddesdon College Oxford and was ordained deacon in 1928 and priest a year later in 1929. He served in parish and academic appointments until 1952 when he was appointed

Bishop of Durham. Detail from the portrait of Ramsey at Lambeth Palace He then served as Archbishop of York from 1956 until 1961 when he became Archbishop of Canterbury in succession to Geoffrey Fisher, his former headmaster at Repton.

(http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887)

Ramsey had a deep affection for the Orthodox tradition and made a particular study of the Early Fathers and worked to strengthen relationships between Anglicans and the Eastern churches.

(http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887)

Ramsey visited Pope Paul VIth in Rome in 1966 and was received in the Sistine chapel, the first Archbishop of Canterbury in modern times formally to visit the Vatican. The evening before leaving for London, the Pope took off his own Episcopal ring, presented to him by the people of Milan, and gave it to Ramsey, who wore it until the day he died. The ring is now kept at Lambeth Palace and is worn when Archbishops visit the Vatican.

(http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887)

Ramsey had a deep affection for the Orthodox tradition and made a particular study of the Early Fathers and worked to strengthen relationships between Anglicans and the Eastern churches.

(http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887)

On retirement, the Ramseys spent time in the USA and in Durham before making their home in Oxford. Michael Rasmey died in 1988 and his ashes are buried in Canterbury Cathedral. His memorial tablet reads:

"The Glory of God is the living man and the life of man is the vision of God."

(http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887)

[Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey] was a very Anglo-Catholic, very conservative, traditional Anglican. He said that the mission of Anglicanism was to become Orthodoxy in the West and seek union with the Church of the East.

(http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/2007/07/anglicanism-in-eastern-orthodox.html)

I just learned of this man. He found much within the east and saw the need for the Anglicans to join it and become the western orthodox but much of this has been lost within the Anglican Church because we focus too much on Rome. I believe we should work with Rome also but I think we need to renew the spark of the east and reach out to the Orthodox Church

I hope you enjoyed learning a bit about this archbishop of Canterbury!

Written by:

Allen Bailey; aspirant of the Anglican province of America

12 of 39

2008-05-03T17:13:00.000-07:00

XII. Of Good Works.

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

We see that by this article we see that good works are fruit that will come for us because of out salvation.

James 2:18-24: “18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (NKJV)

I believe here the scriptures make it clear that our works are need because to say we believe and do nothing about it means about as much as the demons saying they believe.

So what we need as Christian is a living faith that finds its self putting that faith to action!

Written by:

Allen Bailey; aspirant of the Anglican province of America

What did I get myself into........

2008-04-26T14:00:00.000-07:00

I had a very crazy experience the other night. I went to a “revival meeting” let me tell you how this went I can in and they started worship (praise) and they let people come down to the floor below their stage and I had three other friends with me and as we were singing I saw some of the most craziest things in my life there was a lady twitching around to the music and was unable to control herself and people screaming of random thing and in the back people had flags waving that said ”Jesus our healer” and people on the steps with small flags. Now if this wasn’t bad enough the speaker we telling how God was talking to him everyday at like 2 ‘o clock and “God” told him that he was going to pour our 10 anointing at the next 10 days meetings. Then we had this guy telling how he saw people getting heal in the audience and then they had people come to the stage and then they “slayed them in the spirit” and they did that whole crazy deal, but fun note here when they tried in on the kids it didn’t work and all through this thing people were blowing shofars and people felt the need to scream at God. Now about this time I had to leave because what I saw was just so sickening. Me and one of my friends who left also sat outside waiting on the others ( my friend is a reformed Baptist) and he told me he thought I was going to go down to the stage and call these people out and condemn them and I was about to but I held back and just went outside and prayed.

Now this whole thing defied the ways of God and the church. There was no order and it was just chaos and I know I saw at least 3 demon possession people and one of them was the main speaker.

Let me point you to I Cor 14:40 (NKJV) “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

These crazy gatherings are much like a neo-Montanism and as the historical account tells us they were condemn as heretics.

I find it sad that the devil doesn’t need to create a new heresy to attack the church he just bring back an old one and tweak it a little bit and this time The Church is so broken we can’t stop them and they get to run ramped and calm to be real Christianity.

My dear brothers and sisters we who stand upon the orthodox faith of the church (Seven ecumenical councils and the vincentian canon) Need to find a way to unite so that we may fight these wicked time because if we don’t we will further be pushed back into the dark. We need to unite so that we can truly bring back the glory of the church and with one voice condemn heresy.

What type of anglican are you!

2008-04-19T09:55:00.000-07:00

I would say that Anglicanism can be split into 6 category's

(The word practice is meaning liturgy and devotions)

1. Low church- Reformed practice and reformed theology (aka presbyterian with a prayer book)

I would like to point out beyond this point Anglicans hold to apostolic succession and it necessity, but there is a chance that Low churchmen may also.

2. Broad church (middle of the way) - These have a mix of some higher practice but not that high and protestant theology, maybe some high church theology in some cases.

3. High church Anglicans - These take high practice and theology but may not go all the way with the catholic belief system and practice. They hold still to some protestant theology in places.

This is where I see the break between those who are protestant and those who are catholic. Those beyond this point usually don't think much or at all of the 39 articles, they believe in the 7 full sacraments, and that at least the first 7 ecumenical councils are authoritative and bind all men.

4. Anglo- Catholics- They find a full catholic belief and practice system but they mix Roman and Eastern theology and practice.

5, Anglo- Papalists - These are the Anglicans who are all about Roman in all ways and beliefs, to make it easy they a Roman Catholics in the Anglican church and usually want the Anglican church to be united to the Roman sees again.

6. Orthodox Anglo-Catholics ( Eastern Anglo- Catholic, Anglo-Orthodox) - These are Anglicans who take eastern theology and as much practice as they are allowed because something the eastern church does isn't allowed with in the Anglican practice. Such as the templon with separates altar and the nave. They usually want to unite with the eastern sees and be in full communion with them.

These quick points do not give the full explanation but they give a good over view of Anglicanism today.

Leave me some comments and tell me what you are within our great breath of the Anglican church.

11 of 39

2008-04-09T21:40:00.000-07:00

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Truly this is a fact that by grace we are saved but works we will find are also connected with our faith that it will work out like this. At our salvation we are saved and imputed with Christ’s righteous and as we live the righteousness becomes our because we are being infused by it and the righteousness becomes our own righteousness.

(This is my view and I do not push this on anyone. Please note I am a very high church Anglican. I would write more but it is late and I hope this give another view in the church.)

Just some thoughts

2008-04-01T19:25:00.000-07:00

"Having recovered their identity as citizens of the Church universal, Anglo-Catholics claimed as their own the richness of the Middle Ages, the splendor of Rome, and the mystery of the Orthodox East."

This is something for us to look at as Anglican. We truly take the best of everything. The greatness of the middle-aged, the glam and glitter of Rome in the way our churches and vestments are and we take the mystical part of our theology from the east. Our liturgy has Roman and eastern elements in it. This truly is a beautiful thing!

Written by:

Allen Bailey; aspirant of the Anglican province of America

A bit on tradition

2008-03-24T20:16:00.000-07:00

What about those before us?

Well im going to take a quick break on going over the articles and take about some father quotes I came across here is the first

Epiphanius of Salamis

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

This quote is show that the fathers didn’t even think that the Scriptures tell us everything thing we need and that we also need the traditions to help us understand and these men knew and humbly admitted that they needed what those who before them said but we today think we know so much and understand everything and something C.S. Lewis said would apply if you do think like that and it is called “chronological snobbery” and that means you think you know more then those who came before you because you further down the timeline.

Irenaeus (180A.D.)

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?"

We see even earlier that they believer in following the traditions and that they were much needed and we need to look at the traditions like this. Lets say you were given a great inheritance and it was something you family saved up to give from 3 generation so you could live well and then pass it on and you waste it and think nothing of those who gave it to you and spend it on all kinds of things and have nothing to pass on to you family did you do what was right. Now that inheritance was the Scriptures those who pass it on were the fathers and they tell us how to use them Just like the family said how to spend it and pass it on but some of use don’t care what they say and do what we feel like with them and pass nothing of worth on just as the person wastes the money and gives nothing to their children.

These are just some of the quotes that bring to light our need for the traditions and the scriptures and have a balance of the both because one without the other will cause weakness.

These are just some quick thoughts and its getting later hope this may of helped you open your horizons some more.

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

10 of 39

2008-03-12T15:38:00.001-07:00

Article X

Of Free Will.

The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

ISA 64:5-6

You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousness are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.

(NKJV)

John 6:44

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(NKJV)

Ephesians 2:4-5

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

(NKJV)

So we see that man as we are can not chose unless God has brought light to us and light is the general call that the Fathers has given in the death of Christ and the preaching of the word. We need the spirit to move us but we also need to chose Christ should we turn away we will be left in our dead state. So God can and has drawn all men but men chose to either give up their nature or hold on to it.

I will admit here that I do believe in the free will of man so that is where I stand and my view of this article comes from.

Written by:

Allen Bailey; aspirant of the Anglican province of America

9 of 39

2008-03-08T18:50:00.001-08:00

Article IX

Of Original or Birth Sin.

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

WE all are born with sin in us just because we are human because once Adam fell sin has infected us and can only be removed by baptism

This is what Pelagius believed

(1)

Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

This is why this article needs to be written and tell of how baptism is need and that one thing that isn’t spoken about here such as infant baptism because of one of the things that was told was about how children need to be baptized.

Here are the ending cannons against him

(1)

Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".

So this is just one more reason we need to find ourselves in line with history so we don’t find ourselves in this heresy that was dealt with already and I have met people who really believe Pelagius was right but this is foolish because the whole church dealt with him and he was condemned as a heretic. So this is just a brief aid to help understand the article.

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

8 of 39

2008-03-08T18:49:00.002-08:00

Article VIII

. Of the Three Creeds.

HE three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic* Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets.

And I believe in one holy Catholic* and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic* faith.
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.
As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another;
But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.
He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood;

Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ:
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

These are the three creeds that bind the church and that these three are affirm by the scripture. Now do not take this as the councils because there are seven ecumenical councils that bind the church and all have to accept. They are

First Council of Nicaea, (325)

First Council of Constantinople, (381)

Council of Ephesus, (431)

Council of Chalcedon, (451

Second Council of Constantinople, (553);

Third Council of Constantinople, (680–681)

Second Council of Nicaea, (787)

These seven councils bind all men and must be believed but this will be dealt with later for now the three creeds are to be accepted because they speak nothing against the holy Writ.

By: Allen Bailey, aspirant of the Anglican province of America

7 of 39

2008-03-08T18:49:00.001-08:00

Article VII

. Of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwith-standing, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Christians as this article states that the laws that are moral should be followed completely and they are bound to us. These are the things which are good to be done and helpful to your fellow man

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

6 of 39

2008-03-08T18:48:00.002-08:00

Article 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,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Numbers,
Deuteronomy,
Joshua,
Judges,
Ruth,

The First Book of Samuel,
The Second Book of Samuel,
The First Book of Kings,
The Second Book of Kings,
The First Book of Chronicles,
The Second Book of Chronicles,
The First Book of Esdras,
The Second Book of Esdras,

The Book of Esther ,
The Book of Job,
The Psalms,
The Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Four Prophets the greater,
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 Fourth Book of Esdras,
The Book of Tobias,
The Book of Judith,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Book of Wisdom,
Jesus the Son of Sirach,

Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The First Book of Maccabees,
The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received,
we do receive, and account them Canonical.

We believe that the Holy Writ does have everything in it for salvation and that those book that are in the Bible as we have it today is just bring reaffirmed as correct. The book known as the in Protestant circles as the Apocrypha

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Children
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

These books are not worthless they can be read from in church or personal life they help us see history or help in guiding our lives to live more Godly but we can not make doctrine with them.

Now these books that are called the Apocrypha that are in the Roman Catholic cannon

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Children
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon

1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

These from the Apocrypha are in the Greek Orthodox Cannon

1 Esdras

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Children
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Psalm 151

Now also let me make a note that these next writing are Apocryphal like for the New Testament and they are

1 and 2 Clement

Shepherd of Hermas

Didache

Epistle of Barnabas

Apocalypse of Peter

The Protevangelium of James

Third Epistle to the Corinthians

These books were accepted as good in the early church but not inspired and some almost made it into the cannon but because of the time they were written or because of uncertainness of content they were left out. I have read most of these and there is nothing unchristian in them. The only two I can not speak for is The Apocalypse of Peter and The Protevangelium of James

We should read those book that are good and do not defy the Holy Writ because they help us our live or show us what they church was doing then. So let these things give flavor to your faith, but the holy writ in its self is complete and good for all things.

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

5 of 39

2008-03-08T18:48:00.001-08:00

Article V

Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

This statement is correct to the west but those who look to the east for their theology. They would say this is incorrect and way is become something called the Filioque clause. The east says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, Where as the west says the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son.

The history of the Clause came about by the franks and their king Charlemagne who forced this to be added into the Nicene Creed in 800’s the Pope of the time Pope Leo III forbade it but was forced to accept it later.

I myself refuse to say the clause for the historical reason of that it was not part of the original creed. So I do not think it right to use something that was changed by one or a few men. I will stand with what the Church said as a whole and that was the Nicene Creed without the Filioque cloause.

Now you have to make your decision after your study of this clause and its history, to say this clause or not.

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

4 of 39

2008-03-08T18:47:00.002-08:00

Article IV

Of the Resurrection of Christ.

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

This article is affirming the scriptures saying that Christ had a physical body he rose in. Let me make my point by pointing back to St. Thomas the Apostle he touched our Lord (John 20:27-29) so Christ could have been no less then in a physical body

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

3 of 39

2008-03-08T18:47:00.001-08:00

Article III

Of the going down of Christ into Hell

As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

Jesus went the sheol or hell or the abode of the dead. A waiting place till judgment day and showed those waiting He came. So this article does not defy scripture, tradition, or the seven ecumenical councils.

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

2 of 39

2008-03-08T18:46:00.002-08:00

Article II

Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

This article has nothing out of the bounds of Scripture, church tradition, and the seven ecumenical councils.

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America

1 of 39

2008-03-08T18:46:00.001-08:00

Article I

Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

This article has nothing wrong with it. The article complies with the scriptures, church history, and the seven ecumenical councils.

By: Allen Bailey aspirant of the Anglican province of America