Research a federal law enforcement agency which will be the US Marshals, and write about your findings for that particular agency. Include what the primary function of that agency, the history of the agency, and the requirements for the candidates for the agency. Explain why don’t we see these agents on a more frequent basis. For the resources, Please use mostly publications and only one internet source.
SYPNOSIS Arius and Athanasius were archrivals of the Arian contention. Arius was the main dad in Arianism while Athanasius was the safeguard of the Nicene Theology for universal Christianity against Arianism. As Arianism rejects the holiness of Christ, salvation to humankind was in question. Athanasius advocates the consubstantiality of the three people of the trinity which was urgent contention to guard the godliness of Christ. Thusly Athanasius had manufactured the ground of the Trinitarian and Christological principle which together with the mankind of Christ speaks to the entire Trinitarian philosophy. I. Presentation The fourth century church encountered a noteworthy emergency in understanding God’s awesome nature, qualities and association with individuals from the Godhead. This Arian contention focused upon two archrival scholars, Arius and Athanasius.1 The debate spoke to another period of doctrinal advancement of the Godhead and prompted the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Church’s first ecumenical explanation of the Trinity. 2 Athanasius was the hero of Nicene Theology, who significantly guarded the conventional Christianity against the Arian heresy.3 Section II of this article will quickly talk about the foundation of Arius, and condense his fundamental philosophy. Segment III will give a diagram about Athanasius’ life, Athanasius’ religious philosophy related to his resistance against the Arians’ apostate cases. At long last, the end will be attracted Section IV. II. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY The ‘Arian debate’ touched off in 318, when Arius transparently shown his apostate lessons that precluded the full godlikeness from claiming the Son. Thus, Arius tested his diocesan (Alexander of Alexandria) and instructors of Alexandria to a Christological conflict.4 The debate went on for about 50 years and turned into the showdown between the two archrivals, the ‘Nicene party’ and Origenists.5 Athanasius authored the names ‘Arian’ and ‘Arians’ as insulting political and philosophical slurs against Arius and his adversaries, who couldn’t help contradicting him on the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and those implied the Son as an animal or held quick to Arius’ essential position. Cf. Thomas G. Weinandy, Athanasius: a Theological Introduction (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), 51-52. Donald K. McKim, Theological Turning Points: Major Issues in Christian Thought (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 14. Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of The Reformation (3 vols., New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984, Vol. 1), 173. Johannes Quasten, Pathology: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature. From the Council of Nicaea to the chamber of Chalcedon (Utrecht, Netherlands: Range Publishers, 1963, Vol. III), 66. Bruce L. Shelly, Church History in Plain Language (second Ed., Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1995), 100. Everett Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1990), 8485, 92. The debate establishes lay somewhere down in “the distinctions of the stake Nicene principle of the Logos,” particularly in the two opposing misleading statements of Origen’s Christology, which was asserted by both archrivals ― the full heavenly nature of Christ and his endless peculiarity from the Father.6 Conclusively, the Arians were the impetuses, as opposed to the fundamental participants.7 II.1. ARIUS AND HIS DOCTRINE Prepared in the Lucian School, Arius was called one of the shocking dads of Arianism.8 Arianism was an unorthodox principle of religious logic, in view of the lessons of Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, and Neoplatonic hypothesis of subordinationism.9 Arius composed almost no and just a couple of pieces endure. Thalia was his solitary claim composing which Athanasius recited.10 Most data about Arius’ life and his tenet originated from Athanasius’ writings.11 Impacted by Origen, Arius dismissed the term όμοούσιος (consubstantial) and demanded the solid and unmistakable three people (πστασις) of the Godhead, a different quintessence and the subordination of the Son to Father.12 Nicene split the congregation into two noteworthy gatherings: 1) The ‘Nicene party’― comprised of the West, the school of Antioch and other in the East like Athanasius. They confirmed the full god of Jesus Christ, however were less clear on the unceasing threeness of the Godhead. They didn’t deny the refinement between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e. they were not Monarchians), but rather they didn’t state it as commandingly as the Origenists needed thus appeared to them to be Monarchian. (2) The Origenists ― were solid on the threeness of the Godhead, yet less clear on the god of Jesus Christ. They were not Arians (i.e. they didn’t see Jesus Christ as an animal made out of nothing), however they held him to be sub-par compared to the Father thus showed up Arian to the Nicene party. Cf. Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought (Rev. ed., London: T&T Clark, 2006), 30. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism’ in A Religious Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology (third ed.; Toronto, New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1894, Vol. 1) 134137. Cf. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html (29 April 2010). Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 30-31. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism’ in A Religious Reference book or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 134-137. Cf. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html (29 April 2010). Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 7. Ephiphanius, Panarion 69,4. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,4. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 15. Note: Scholars still discussion over the ideological harbinger of Arius’ regulation, regardless of whether it was gotten from the speculations of Origen, or of Paul of Samosata, or of Lucian of Antioch. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 6-8. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, I.5,6; Athanasius, De Synodis, 15. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T and T Clark Ltd., 1988), 11. What’s more, a couple of sources from the congregation antiquarians of the fourth and fifth hundreds of years, and from the letters of St. Basil and of Epiphanius of Salamis. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10-13. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism’ in A Religious Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, what’s more, Practical Theology, 134-137. John Behr, The Way to Nicaea: The Formation of Christian Theology (3 vols.; Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001, Vol. 1), 200-201. Arius denied all inside awesome relations existing between the Father and the Son ― the interminable god of Christ and his fairness with the Father (όμοούσια).13 II.2. A SUMMARY OF ARIUS’ THEOLOGY Arius’ fundamental doctrine:14 (1) Godhead is uncreated, unbegotten (γννητος), without beginning;15 (2) The Son of God can’t be genuinely God. The Son is the first of God’s animals, an optional God, “god by investment.” Like alternate manifestations, “the Son isn’t unbegotten (γννητος),” “he is something molded and made,” 16 brought out ex nihilo (ξ οκ ντων). “Sometime in the past the Son of God was not (ν τε οκ ν).”17 “Neither does the Son in fact know his own substance all things considered,” “he was made for the good of we, instead of we for his.” “He is the Son of God not in the otherworldly, but rather in the ethical feeling of the word.”18 By the desire of God, the Son has “his resolution and character (ἥλικος καἰ σος).” “The Son is by his inclination; variable, changeable, similarly with other sound creatures.” The Father is ‘indescribable to the Son; for neither does the Word (Logos) impeccably and precisely know the Father, neither can he splendidly observe Him (the Father).”19 (3) “The title of God is ill-advised for the Son of God, since the main genuine God embraced him as Son in prevision of his merits.” This sonship by selection demands “no genuine cooperation in the heavenly nature and no obvious resemblance to it;” Thus, the supreme and endless holiness of Christ 13 Epiphanius, Panarion 69.6.1ff. Theodoret of Cyrus, Haereticarum fabularum abridgment (History of Apostasies) I.5. Cf. Philip Schaff, ‘Arius’ in A Religious Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology,139. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 7-8. 14 Epiphanius, Panarion 69,6. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,5,1-4. Athanasius, De Synodis 15. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,6. Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia conc. Nic. 2,3. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 8, 14, 15-16.Cf. Athanasius, Epistula encyclical advertisement episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 12. Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters (Philip Schaff ed.; Grand Rapids, Mi: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1892), 229. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_229.html (25 April 2011). 15 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1.4.1. See additionally the end in Arius’ first Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10. 16 Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 16. 17 See the Arius’ decision in his first Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Athanius, De Synodis, II.26. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Discussion 318-381, 8. 18 Athanasius, Ad Episcopos Aegypti 12. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 16. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal apostasy: Arianism as the centuries progressed, 8. 19 Italic words are mine. Athanasius, De Synodis 15. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal apostasy: Arianism as the centuries progressed, 7. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 15. >