Inquiry, the member Tiffy

Discussion in 'Court of High Commission' started by Phoenix, Sep 19, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    The first Article of Religion deals with the most fundamental principle of our Anglican Religion.

    You quote in defence of you assertion that God, The Indivisible Trinity, is masculine:

    "This is said to violate the Oath of Subscription in three ways:
    It violates the Scriptures.
    It violates the Creeds.
    It violates the Formularies."

    The following scripture references you claim to support your peculiar interpretation of their meaning actually do nothing of the sort.

    Psalm 68:5; Psalm 2:7; Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 64:8; Deuteronomy 32:6; Luke 10:21-22; Matthew 6:9; Matthew 7:21; 1 Peter 1:3; John 14:23; John 20:17; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 3:1.

    But your peculiar interpretation of ALL these verses of scripture is palpably repugnant to these other scriptures:

    John 4:24 "God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth."

    God is a pure spirit. The Bible contains no definition of God, let alone a description of God's gender, masculine or feminine. The nearest approach to a definition is found in the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman, "God is Spirit". This means that He is essentially spirit, and that all the qualities which belong to the perfect idea of spirit are necessarily found in Him. The fact that He is pure spirit excludes the idea that He has a body of some kind and is in any way visible to the physical eye.

    1 Tim. 6:16. "Who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see."

    Ex. 15:11. "Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"

    If God were masculine, as you claim, then there would be many "like unto him" in their 'masculinity'. But God according to scripture is like unto no one else, therefore not masculine.

    To falsely claim that God is 'like unto all that are male or masculine' is repugnant to Ex.15:11; Isa.55:8-9; Isa.6:3. therefore a damnable heresy. God is thrice Holy. Holy means unique, apart, unlike anything else. Certainly unlike anything specifically masculine or feminine.

    The tenth Article of Religion deals with the way in which scripture must be interpreted.

    I think your peculiar interpretation of the scripture that you have quoted in support of your contention that God is 'masculine' and not 'feminine', violates Articles 1 and 10 of the Articles of Religion.
     
    neminem likes this.
  2. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    This was the oath I affirmed to when joining the website. Read it carefully.

    The charges brought against me accuse me of breaking it.

    However, The Church of England, since it's inception, has never made it a 'belief necessary for salvation' to affirm that God is irrefutably 'male' or 'masculine'. Therefore neither should this website, if it is to legitimately carry the name 'Anglican'.

    On the contrary the Church of England states in Article one of The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion that:

    The Church of England has never at any time in history declared God to be 'masculine'.

    I therefore submit that this website has broken its oath, in teaching such a heresy openly and opposing those who present to them the TRUTH, that God is Spirit, and there is none like unto Him.

    Masculinity, manliness, maleness, femininity, human gender of any kind can, none of them, be applied to God, who is HOLY and therefor utterly UNLIKE anything else in both heaven and earth, including obviously of like gender. The church of England has always stood by this understanding of scripture, has never taught otherwise, and if this website continues to preach God's 'masculinity', it is breaking the terms of the oath.
     
  3. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Correction to previous but one post:

    The twentieth Article of Religion deals with the way in which scripture must be interpreted in the Anglican Church.

    XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

    The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

    I think your peculiar interpretation of the scripture that you have quoted in support of your contention that God is 'masculine' and not 'feminine', violates Articles 1 and 20 of the Articles of Religion.

    God is not masculine, God is not feminine, God IS 'All in All'. 1 Cor.15:28.
    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  4. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    136
    @Tiffy
    You still have not addressed the top half of the last post, dealing with the necessary nature of the Creeds and the Formularies. Can you please address this at your earlier convenience?


     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  5. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I most assuredly affirm that the scriptures indeed, frequently refer to God as "Our Father", in both Old and New Testaments, and that since Our Lord himself referred to the triune God as such, such references must therefore be necessary, else they would not be there.

    I have never implied otherwise.

    The name "Father is frequently applied in scripture to the triune God, as creator of all things, 1 Cor.8:6; Heb.12:9; Jas.1:17; as the Father of Israel, Deut.32:6; Isa.63:16; and as the Father of believers, Matt.5:45; Matt.6:6; Matt.6:9; Matt.6:14; Rom.8:15. In a deeper sense, however it is applied to the First person of the Trinity, to express His relation to the Second Person, Jn.1:14; Jn.1:18; Jn.8:54; Jn.14:12-13. This is the original Fatherhood, of which all earthly fatherhood is but a faint reflection. The distinctive characteristic of the Father is that He generates the Son from all eternity. The works particularly ascribed to Him are those of planning the work of redemption, creation and providence, and representing the Trinity in the Council of Redemption. (A Summary of Christian Doctrine, by Louis Berkhof)

    I most assuredly affirm that the scriptures indeed, frequently refer to Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, as The Son of God and, since he was found in fashion as a man, (a male human being), Phil.2:8, while on earth, he was rightly referred to by others as "He".

    The Son: The Second person of the Trinity is called 'Son' or 'Son of God.' He bears this name however, not only as the only begotten of the Father, Jn.1:14; Jn.1:18; Jn.3:16; Jn.3:18; Gal.4:4, but also as the Messiah chosen of God, Matt.8:29; Matt.26:63; Jn.1:49; Jn.11:27, and in virtue of His special birth through the operation of the Holy Spirit, Lk.1:32-35, His special characteristic as the Second Person of the Trinity is that He is eternally begotten of the Father, Ps.2:7; Acts.13:33; Heb.1:5. By means of eternal generation the Father is the cause of the personal existence of the Son within the divine being. The works more particularly ascribed to Him are works of mediation. He mediated the work of creation, Jn.1:3-10; Heb.1:2-3, and mediates the work of redemption, Eph.1:3-14. (A Summary of Christian Doctrine, by Louis Berkhof)

    I would also take pains to point out that labelling the First or Second Persons of the Trinity with human sex or gender violates article 1 of The Articles of Religion of The Church of England, since God is therein declared to be "One" without "Body, Parts or Passions".

    Also that teaching that God (as in any of the three persons of the Trinity), bears any similarity whatever to 'masculine' or 'feminine' creatures of any sort, is repugnant to the holy scriptures, and thus violates Article 20 of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

    i.e. Neither may it [the church], so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another.
    .
     
  6. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    136
    One more time. This conversation revolves around the Scriptures, and the Creeds, and the Formularies. Three subjects joined with a logical and. There is no need for obfuscation. Please be entirely clear.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  7. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    My understanding of the word suffice is:
    suffice: to be enough; to be competent or adequate; to satisfy.

    To be sufficient therefore would be in my opinion:
    sufficient: adequate for the purpose; sufficing; effective; all that is required.

    My understanding therefore of Article 6 of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England is:

    That anything that one has assented to as being true in the scriptures would also be an assent to anything derivative from those scriptures, namely the Creeds and the Formularies, both of which are entirely derived and dependent upon the truth of the scriptures.

    If you are demanding assent from me to truths you falsely imagine the Creeds and Formularies to contain which are not to be found in the scriptures themselves then you are violating Article 6 of the Articles of Religion.

    "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.

    This makes me wonder exactly who should be on trial.

    Is that clear enough?
    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2018
    neminem likes this.
  8. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    136
    No one is demanding anything. My only job is to make sure that you are in compliance with the Creeds and Formularies, as conditions for Anglican identity.

    All I ask is that you affirm all the things in both the creeds and the formularies as summaries of necessary belief, with every clause being considered necessary by their authors; which includes the God's Fatherhood and all the other things we have discussed; and this whole conversation can be dropped.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  9. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    God is Father of all, as stated in the Scripture, the Creeds and the Formularies. The latter, both having been derived directly, from the former.
    .
     
  10. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    136
    Okay. So one more (and hopefully last) time:

     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  11. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Yes!
     
  12. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    136
    Thank you. Will you then withdraw and rescind all previous statements which contradict the (now jointly agreed upon) necessary appellation of God as Father; such as, for instance:

    This would seem to imply that God's appellation as Father is accidental rather than necessary.

    This would seem to imply that God's appellation as Father is accidental rather than necessary.

    This would seem to imply that God's appellation as Father is accidental rather than necessary.

    This would seem to imply that God's appellation as Father is accidental rather than necessary.

    This would seem to imply that the masculine pronouns referring to Our Savior employed by the Creeds and Formularies are accidental, and not necessary.

    This would seem to imply that the masculine pronouns referring to Our Savior employed by the Creeds and Formularies are accidental, and not necessary.

    This would seem to imply that the masculine pronouns referring to Our Savior employed by the Creeds and Formularies are accidental, and not necessary.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  13. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Really? It seems to me that you have difficulty letting go and dropping. Dropping seems too much to hope for, you are certainly persistent.

    An adequately honest and succinct reply I think. Most people would have graciously accepted it, but not you.

    My succinct reply to both questions was: YES!

    Any reasonable person might have thought this would end the matter, but no.

    It would only seem so to you, not to any reasonable person.

    There is nothing whatever accidental about what appears in Holy Writ. Therefore also nothing accidental in the Creeds or Formularies.

    accidental: Happening by chance; not essential; a mishap; unessential.

    The only mishap going on here is your peculiar interpretation of the use of Father to imply that God The Holy Trinity is 'masculine' and that Jesus Christ risen, ascended and seated at the right hand of God, still has body parts and gender equivalent to a living mortal human being here on earth, thus, you claim it would seem, The Trinity has a body, parts and passions. That interpretation is repugnant to several passages of scripture, some of them with Apostolic Authority, yet you continue to persist in your heresy, in spite of the prohibition of it in Article 20 of The Articles of Religion of The Church of England.

    But what are you assuming to BE the necessity of the masculine pronouns used to describe Christ and God? I would say they are only there because Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, WAS a man, and God IS The Father. Therefore they merely state the truth, which is the only necessity.

    You seem to want, (for some reason of your own), to ADD something to the scriptures, the Creeds and Formularies. I think all who have followed this thread can guess what that is Phoenix.
    .
     
  14. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I have just realised that your problem might be one of 'language'. My answer to your questions was inadvertently ambiguous because it was too concise. My terse "Yes"! was obviously inadequate.

    Would it help you to understand my meaning better if I re-worded it thus:

    I hereby do solemnly affirm the necessity of the references to God as Our Father, in the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Formularies.

    I also solemnly affirm the necessity of references to the risen Jesus Christ as a "Son" and as a "he", in the Scriptures, the Creeds and the Formularies.

    What I will not and do not affirm is any necessity whatever for the requirement of any believing Christian to believe as a condition of salvation that, "The 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, is exclusively masculine in gender.

    There has never been such a requirement by The Church of England claimed to be derived from, the Scriptures, the Creeds or the Formularies, and those who falsely require it are in contravention of the Scriptures, the Creeds and the Formularies.

    God is Holy thrice over and Pure Spirit, therefore utterly unlike any other creature in ALL respects, including the respect of gender identity.

    Have I finally made myself clear?
     
  15. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    136

    I'm afraid you have made yourself less clear than ever. We are back to square one. When you state in one breath that "God is necessarily Father" and then "God may just as well be a Mother as a Father", you violate the Law of the Excluded Middle, and deny the necessity of calling him Father.

    When you state in one breath that "Christ is necessarily a Son and a he", and then, "Human concepts of sex and gender cannot describe Christ", you deny the necessity of calling him a Son and a he.

    This cannot proceed much longer, if you continue to refuse to abide by plain, common sense, rules of logic and human conversation. Unless you withdraw one or the other of the claims, then your
    -oaths,
    -professions,
    -affirmations

    cannot be accepted at face value.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  16. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Matthew 23:37
    ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

    Deuteronomy 32:11
    As an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes them up, and bears them aloft on its pinions

    Luke 13:34
    Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

    Isaiah 49:15
    Can a woman forget her nursing-child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.​

    The tradition in which we stand affirms the whole of Scripture, and there are times when the sacred text employs feminine imagery in the description of the divine. I understand in the advance of much modernism and and the liberalism of the present day it can be challenging to know where the lines should be drawn, but we dare not draw them somewhere that would discount some parts of the sacred text.
     
    utilitymonster likes this.
  17. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Your plain common sense is actually a crude and inept heretical interpretation of scripture repugnant to other scripture as proscribed in Article 20 of The Articles of Religion. Your 'human conversation' is in fact 'human reasoning', and pretty carnal human reasoning at that.

    The real issue as far as I can see, is that the church needs to preserve its Theological understanding that God The Holy Trinity, Three in One and One in Three, is Spirit and therefore not of any specific sex or gender. To assign God sex or gender runs the risk of comparing God with the gods of other religions, who have sexual intercourse, husbands, wives, etc. Mormons for instance hold that God has a 'wife'.

    God is utterly unlike any created thing or being, male, female or creature of any kind, material or immaterial, visible or invisible, masculine or feminine.

    To suggest, as you do, that Almighty God The Eternal Trinity, 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, has male sex, human gender, and is exclusively masculine, is to deny God's Almighty Omnipotence by inference. The logical inference hiding surreptitiously behind your apparently innocuous, and scripturally illogical "necessity" assertion, is that Almighty God is unable to epitomise perfect motherhood, as Almighty God also epitomises perfect Fatherhood. You thus claim that God is incapable of doing something and being something, which scripture plainly claims God IS and can DO to perfection. I won't bother with the references because I know you will ignore them as you have all the other references I have provided.

    On those grounds you are openly and hypocritically teaching a heresy, implying God is not Almighty, not Omnipotent, and incapable of 'motherhood'. Even human beings are capable of 'motherhood', and scripture plainly states that God is not only capable of it, but epitomises it in perfection. Human fatherhood and motherhood are mere reflections of God's image and likeness. Both of these qualities come from God. In fact ALL THINGS COME FROM GOD. 1 Chr.29:14; Mk14:36; 1 Cor.11:12.

    Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 1 Cor.11:12.

    ALL gender references to Almighty God are metaphors, similes, symbols and figures of speech. None of them can ever describe the REALITY of the Triune God, who is without body, parts or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker, and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. Altogether they build a composite impression of Almighty God who is Pure Spirit.

    THEREFORE: Wherever possible God should be referred to as "GOD". Almighty God, Holy God, Just God, Loving God, etc. Where language makes that awkward, or clumsy, God can be referred to as "He" or "Father", the precedent is from Our Lord Himself . Since our Lord never referred to His Father as "She", such references in public worship should be discouraged. It should be perfectly allowable however for initiates in the church to be taught the TRUE nature of God as Pure Spirit and therefore God's Omnipotent Capacity to epitomise either Masculinity in "His Fatherliness" or "Femininity in Her Motherliness". God being the Perfect Epitome of BOTH male and female human attributes, having created both male and female in God's likeness and image.


    There is no common sense or logic in your insistence upon The Holy Trinity being 'entirely masculine' and none of this has been conducted in the spirit of 'conversation'. It has been an interrogation with yourself as self appointed judge and jury. You have presided over a dogmatic attempt to foist upon unsuspecting believers, your own heretical opinions, contrary to the scriptures, the Thirty nine Articles and the creeds.

    I no longer have any expectation that you will take any notice of anything I or the scriptures say. I believe your mind was set upon a course of action from the outset.

    "Hier stehe ich kann nicht anders." I am fed up with this Diet of Worms. :wallbash:
    .
     
  18. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    136
    Thank you. My responses in brief, respectfully:
    1. The analogies of the divine to a protective eagle, or a grammatical neuter, certainly exist in scripture. However, let us note that they are just that: analogies. Analogies can take whatever gender the analogy needs. I may say that you Botolph are "like a knowledgeable oak; its roots and wisdom stretch into the ground." Equating you to a neutral gender would not infringe on your actual biological gender which you actually possess. While we do not say that God has a biological gender, we would want to affirm that He is necessarily addressed in gendered, male, terms. He is directly addressed and called out to hundreds of times in sacred Scripture; not one of those addresses is grammatically neuter, let alone grammatically feminine.

    2. Your example does not cover God the Son, our lord Jesus. @Tiffy denies the necessity of acknowledging his currently reigning, risen gender.

    3. My job here is not to be a theologian who creates his own theories and hypotheses. That would be egregious and unjust to this whole process, inapplicable to perfectly orthodox members who may have the misfortune of being brought to this Inquiry, at present or in the future. Nothing about this process is enjoyable, and to make it as fair and just as can be, my deductions cannot have any personal authority. My only job here is to search and apply the bonds of unity that define Anglican identity. The way I search and apply is by searching and applying the Creeds and Formularies. Therein, the method and the essential manner of addressing God has been explicitly chosen, and purposefully pre-selected. Neither the Fathers, nor the Divines, have made it necessary for us to address God in neutral or feminine terms; they have made it necessary to address him, the Father; and the Son, in masculine terms. Adherence to the Creeds and the Formularies, and viewing all parts therein as accurate and necessary, is a condition for possessing the Anglican Badge.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  19. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    623
    Likes Received:
    255
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    That is a lie Phoenix. I have never denied Jesus Christ's masculinity from incarnation to ascension, (He was found in fashion as a man), and your insistence on 'necessity' betrays your natural misogynistic predisposition when interpreting scripture.

    Not according to the Oath it is not. Nothing is mentioned about supporting your particular interpretation of the necessity for believing God Almighty, the Holy Trinity is entirely 'masculine', THAT is entirely your own rather Lutheran idea. Not Anglican at all.

    It would seem you have started your very own heresy. Let's call it Phoenixism: Definition - The belief that the One God is entirely masculine and therefore utterly incapable of motherhood.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2018
  20. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    208
    Likes Received:
    73
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    I'm losing track of what Tiffy is alleged to have done wrong. Would it be helpful if Phoenix wrote what is alleged to be wrong and then wrote what he thinks Tiffy should have written as an acceptable reply? Maybe Tiffy may agree with Phoenix's "amended" statements.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page