Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
10 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2008 - 10:53AM #1
calebevans218
Posts: 454
What are your thoughts on the Articles? Do you affirm them in their entirety?

In Christ,
Caleb
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2008 - 10:37AM #2
DietoWorms
Posts: 351

calebevans218 wrote:

What are your thoughts on the Articles? Do you affirm them in their entirety?

In Christ,
Caleb



Hi Caleb,

I wanted to re-read them before giving my opinion. You can read them here.

I believe they are the cornerstone of Anglican theology. There is only one I don't "get" and that is:

Article 3:

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

I know this is in the Apostle's Creed, but where in the Bible does it say Christ went down into Hell? I am not disagreeing with this, I guess it is something I don't understand.

Other highlights that stood out for me on the latest reading:

Article 7

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 there 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, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Very important point to remember, especially when that silly shellfish argument is tossed out for the billionth time.

from Article 9...

...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.

I call this Article the "Caleb Article" ;-)

from Article 18...

For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

This article is rejected by universalists and by Oprah Winfrey, LOL.

from Article 26...

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments.

Is this an anti-donatism statement?

Peace,

DoW

Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2008 - 11:32AM #3
Dutch777
Posts: 9,144
DoW:

Check 1Pet.3:19-20 and 1Pet.: 4:6

These refer to the early belief in the Harrowing of Hell i.e. that after His death, Jesus decended to the Place Of The Dead (hell / hades / sheol, later known as the Limbo of the Fathers) to preach salvation and release from that state.   This was a popular subject for medieval artists.
The Path
To Moon
lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own
DharmaPath
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2008 - 11:59AM #4
DietoWorms
Posts: 351

dutch777 wrote:

DoW:

Check 1Pet.3:19-20 and 1Pet.: 4:6

These refer to the early belief in the Harrowing of Hell i.e. that after His death, Jesus decended to the Place Of The Dead (hell / hades / sheol, later known as the Limbo of the Fathers) to preach salvation and release from that state. This was a popular subject for medieval artists.



Ahhh....I gotcha Dutch, thanks for the heads up.

1st Peter 4:6

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does

Perhaps this is one of those theological things that we may never understand.  Or at least I won't understand..

I will ask St. Peter when I see him.

DoW

Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2008 - 4:45PM #5
calebevans218
Posts: 454
DoW,

I've heard  that AMiA clergy must vow to adhere to the Articles. Is there any truth to that?

In Christ,
Caleb
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2008 - 11:13PM #6
jeanette1
Posts: 738
I don't know...but when we recite the creeds in the old language we say "he descended into hell...
In today's language we say he descended to the dead. Does this mean that hell is the place of the dead? Or does it mean the language was changed because we apparently don't believe in a place called hell any more?


Article 34 has me puzzled.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2008 - 2:20AM #7
rjak134
Posts: 320
[QUOTE=jeanette1;393686]I don't know...but when we recite the creeds in the old language we say "he descended into hell...
In today's language we say he descended to the dead. Does this mean that hell is the place of the dead? Or does it mean the language was changed because we apparently don't believe in a place called hell any more?


Article 34 has me puzzled.[/QUOTE]

Well, the Latin for "descended into Hell" is (according to Wiki) "descendit ad ínferos" (my very basic Latin dictionary lists "inferos" as meaning "underworld" / place of the dead)  and the Greek is "κατελθόντα εις τα κατώτατα" (the first word, katelthonta, means either to "come down" or "arrive," the next two mean "unto the" and katotata is the superlative of deep, so "deepest").

In other words, the original texts are of almost no help.  Christ descended to the deepest place, the underworld, the place of the dead.  What that means is that different denominations/people will likely interpret the word in a variety of ways.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2008 - 2:36AM #8
jeanette1
Posts: 738
Isn't there a place in scripture where it says that Jesus talked to the dead while he was there...in the under world that is..
I seem to recall during a Bible study eons ago some evangelicals pointed it out.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2008 - 7:57AM #9
withfearandtrembling
Posts: 138
As I understand it, traditionally, the "hell" Christ harrowed was Sheol. Sheol is the holding place of the dead of the Old Testament, that is, Christ descended into Sheol and liberated the patriarchs and such; not hell as we think of as the place of the damned, but the Jews did not have the concept of hell we have today.  Every believer went to Sheol.

I am a little hesitant about the Free Will section, but it depends on how one is reading it, I suppose. I'm no Calvinist. I don't really understand what this section is saying. If it is true that no one, of his own accord, can ever "turn himself" to faith, then only those God gives the grace to believe can believe, and why would God give some the grace to believe and not others, allowing some to be damned and not others?  This makes no logical sense to me and never has. If you say I can't "earn" heaven by my works because nothing I can do is perfect, I can understand and accept that. But if you say I'm not capable of doing ANYTHING on my own, and neither is anyone else, that God does it all 100%, then I have to ask, why doesn't he do it for EVERYONE then? Why doesn't the God who is "not willing that any should perish" extend his irresistable grace to all. So, what is this article really saying? How is it traditionally interpreted?

I can't bring myself to believe this either:

XIII. Of Works before Justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God

I can't believe that any good works are not pleasant to God.

Someone has to explain this to me, because I have no idea what this means:

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety

I have problems with this for the same reasons I stated under Free Will:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election

I do believe that no one comes to God except through Christ and by Christ's name, but I realize I don't really interpret that in an orthodox way. I think it is possible to go through Christ and by Christ without realizing that is what you are doing. I sitll have trouble believing that the Buddhist who lives a more Christ-like life than I is hell bound. That I know is unorthodox, but I can't shake it; I don't think that negates proclaiming the Gospel throughout the world, but I don't think we can know what anyone's TRUE relationship with Christ is based on whether or not he calls himself a Christian (Matthew 25 sheep and goats parable; Matthew 7:22-23).

As I write all this, I realize I am not an orthodox Anglican. I'm a conservative who is also an Anglican, a conservative who is not terribly comfortable worshipping in liberal churches.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2008 - 11:15AM #10
calebevans218
Posts: 454
DoW,

I found this excellent article by Fr. Matt Kennedy on Article III. I trust that you will find it as informative and interesting as I did.

http://binghamtongoodshepherd.com/descenttohell.shtml

In Christ,
Caleb
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook