| Re: |
You say it is twisting Fox's words but I say it is misunderstanding them. How much of Fox have you actually studied? Have you carefully read his journal? Or do you just believe what others say about him? I have studied his writings for many years and know that many write absolute rubbish about him and even Wesley, great theologian as he was, did not understand Fox.
I don't agree with everything Fox said, nobody is right 100% but he was right on most things theologically speaking and the proof of the pudding was in the eating. I don't know why he had to interrupt Anglican services but I would not judge anyone on such a practise in a society that I have little idea about.
| 2014/8/26 3:59|
| Re: |
i did read quite a bit of his journal i littel wile ago ,,i started to read the book i was just talking about
im not saying your twisting all is words but his rubuking coments he wrote is is own book in that particular comment ,, theres nothing to misunderstand in that case no deep theoligy or alaogry or figures of speaches ,,he plainly was againts the idea that only the apostals and old prophets had infalable revalation ,,he made it plain and clear ,he was arguing againsts that idea
in his book that is why he quoted the pasters words and then gave his reproof
i dont realy have issues with him interupting sevices ,,just this so far ,,i have read other things that are similar ,,,
fox rebuked an indapendent paster for saying this .........................................................................................................................quote''' although there be the same spirit in all the saints that gave forth scripture , yet all the saints do not have the same inspiration of the spirit that the apostals and the prophets had , so as that they should be able to give forth INFALABLE TRUTHS , and imediatly dis cover the pure and clear will of god AS THE APOSTALS AND PROPHETS DID
this is word for word quoted from his book ;;;
| 2014/8/26 4:32||Profile|
| Re: |
just for the record im more likely to take heed to john weasly account of what he thought rather then you sister ,,but like i said before i had this concern before i herd weasly had issues with foxes book and the quakers in general ,,,my opinion is based in my reading his own wrightings ,,please dont take offence to that its not personal
| 2014/8/26 4:41||Profile|
| Re: |
OK Gary I am not offended but still don't have an issue as to what Fox said. We have the same Spirit if we have been baptised into the body and can speak the revealed truth just like they did but obviously not all are called to teach.
| 2014/8/26 4:44|
| Re: |
im not sure what you are saying ,,are you say for me not to have an issue what fox said
are you saying we can speak the truth as fox and weasly did
i agree we recieve revalation but obviously we are all subject to error ,let god be true and evey men be a liar as it is written ,paul said
men of god prove that with there argments over so called revealed truth
fox and bunyan went at worse the we do here on sermon index both claim to no the truth
after reading rebutels after rebutels it reminds me of sermon index fourms on a realy realy bad month on contentious debates
im going to read richard baxter and fox next
blessings to you
| 2014/8/26 5:39||Profile|
| Re: |
are you saying we can speak the truth as fox and weasly did
Yes we can. For an example, we can say that God is a Trinity. Not because it says so in the Bible but because it is something that He reveals to us in our spirit. Now that's an easy one that beginners know, but the problem is that many cannot discern between having something revealed by God and something that they worked out in their minds. It takes a proficient to know the difference and so Paul said on one matter that he was saying his own thinking not what had been revealed to him by the Lord. If something has been revealed by the Lord then we can speak with confidence, that is, if one has progressed to having the mind of Christ.
It is this knowing that Fox spoke about and it can only come for those who are in absolute obedience and are led only by the Spirit of God and not by their own notions (another word Fox liked to use). He saw that most of the preachers and leaders in his day were going by their own notions regarding the way of sanctification. They all preached sin according to Fox in that they said that a man cannot stop sinning in this life. That was his contention.
blessings to you too.
| 2014/8/26 8:48|
| Re: |
There is no doubt about it Brenda you really do push that sinless perfection doctrine with its mystical covenant of progressive enlightenment.
Beginner's and Proficient's sound more like an occult coven than the Gospel of grace.
| 2014/8/26 16:46|
| Re: |
The following link is to an 1835 edition of Volume III of the Works of Fox which was published to serve as a rebuttal to the accusation that the Society of Friends has itself apostasies from Fox's teachings.
I have no idea how these eight volumes served to prove otherwise, but in any case the reason I have posted this link is because the part which is entitled The Epistle to the Reader and which forms the first part thereof is truly remarkable in the breadth and import of what Fox was claiming as the substance and meaning of the Quakers, so called.
The various parts which make up Volume III were written and published just seven years after the Quakers began their ministry in the North of England. There are so many extraordinary sayings by Fox in this "Epistle to the Reader" that I am almost lost for words. I am writing this brief comment to draw attention to just one of the things Fox claims.
Having set about to condemn in utter completeness, in every part and by every possible spiritual meaning, all of the Churches in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, with no exceptions whatsoever, Fox declares that the Quakers were brought forth as a remedy to the total and complete apostasy of all sects and groups who take the name of Christ without exception, of priest or member throughout the whole of Christendom. He sets this in specific context of the reign of antichrist which he asserts began at the time of the apostles or soon thereafter and continued up until the hour of his ministry and its beginning. He sets his ministry, or more specifically the move of God which came to be called "the Quakers" as the beginning of the redemption of the woman (Church) sat in ruins in the wilderness of apostasy, being delivered, and her ruin coming to an end; thereby heralding the soon return of Christ.
Anyway don't take my word for it read the part I have made reference to for yourself. I am speechless and will have to meditate on this for some days before I respond again, even if I do respond again. Suffice it to say that I am not in the least bit surprised that Fox was hated by all, apart from those who became as he was. This particular volume was written as a response to persecution and yet it lays down the foundation, and certainty of provoking even more hatred of the Quakers. His condemnation is total, without any restraint of meaning, and it puts all others who take the name of Christ into eternal destruction and ruination without exception. In fact it is so elitist that I am finding it difficult to take it in.
It will take some reading because Fox like most men of his day could retain a long sentence and variety of meaning without necessarily expelling the relevant connections. One thing he does make crystal clear. Everything which he says this move of God represents, (of which he was a principle party), was founded on a direct experience of heaven itself and was not acquired by any means of ordinary learning. Everything is derived from that premise. In short you either received it or else you had no choice but to reject the man himself and all of his friends as heretics. Fox even says that they are called heretics and witches. All of this is set in and around the English Civil War.
| 2014/8/26 20:29|
| Re: |
For anyone who is willing to wade through this, I would like to point out that when Fox uses the term 'professors' he is referring to those who claim to be Christians but do not live the life, walk the walk.
He is speaking against those and the priests and leaders who deny the power of Christ by their confessions of sin, but says that the true church fled into the wilderness since the time of the apostles meaning that true disciples were hidden, but now God has called them forth to join together to preach the true gospel. He is not condemning all mankind but the state of the church in those times was dire, just like it is today and we are ripe for another prophet like Fox to stand up (and probably slaughtered).
When he spoke up in Anglican churches he would be taken outside, beaten to a pulp and left for dead, then the power of God would come upon him and he would stand up, shake the dust off his feet and head for the next town.
When he speaks of the anti-Christ, he is referring to the old man within us who takes his place on the throne of our hearts where Christ should be. In other words, sinners.
| 2014/8/27 2:39|
| Re: |
For anyone who is willing to wade through this, I would like to point out that when Fox uses the term 'professors' he is referring to those who claim to be Christians but do not live the life, walk the walk
I would like to point out that Fox has written in English and not antediluvian so his words are plain enough. In fact his language is so precise that it is simply impossible to misunderstand what he is saying. I have read elements of Fox's books in the past. I was given one just a few days after I was converted in prison in 1984, by an Elder of the Society of Friends. As an inmate in solitary confinement my only access to fellowship was via the prison chaplaincy office. So I asked to see the Catholic Priest, the Anglican Priest, the Methodist Minister and the Quaker Elder. This being not before I asked the Father in heaven why there were so many sects in the Church.
In fact the remarkable thing to me now, in reading this "Epistle to the Reader" from Volume III, is that Fox's originating position is the precise antithesis to my own. I am still trying to fathom that and to see, if as Brenda has suggested that somehow Fox is alluding to something other than the plain meaning of the words themselves. I have a reasonable command of the English language I am not a novice or unlearned so I have to take the position that if I cannot reasonably see the meaning in his words, I would not for myself at least accept any other meaning than the one I could plainly see. I would view any attempt to suggest that Fox was intending an allegorical meaning as deception and reject it out of hand.
Time to stop playing games with words Brenda. Lets cut the heart out of this man's ministry and see what manner of heart it really was!
If as you say Fox was as well versed in Scripture as he clearly was, then making use of passages of Revelation which speak of the great weight of the catholic Church, (being the church in the world) and not simply Rome, then any statement made corresponding to that meaning must of itself have the same weight. If the article did not carry that kind of weight and Fox's words were not so exacting and precise then I would genuinely think that I have misunderstood. As it is I am afraid that I have not misunderstood. Fox included in his condemnation every single person throughout the world who takes the name of Christ and said of them that unless they had come into the move of God of which he was an instrument, then they were yet apostate. There is no removing from what that means Brenda. He says these things in context of Britain, but broadens its meaning in context of using Revelation and the Mother of Harlots as his prophetic and Scriptural canopy. Given that you hold this man to be second only to the apostles of God, then demonstrate from his words and not your own that he did not mean what he has plainly stated in his "Epistle to the Reader".
It is a book written in time and place. The time is a few years after the end of the English Civil war, and the place was specifically the North of England. It was published in 1659. It is specifically a rebuttal to seven years of persecution and hatred by many men and women, but especially authorities of every type and kind, having concluded in the deaths of over 670 men and women in prison, and a few by execution. Not to mention imprisonment of more than 10,000 men and women, the whippings, beatings and slanders of many more thousands of men and women, all called Quaker's by those who hated them throughout the north of England, especially. The book therefore is not an allegory, it is set in a very dreadful context and circumstance. Moreover Fox went on to live another thirty-two or three years. He had plenty of time to recant of it's meaning and purpose had he ceded it's meaning to an error in his own thinking.
Moreover the "Epistle to the Reader" is a universal address to all men in all times and in all paces. It is stated thus and not some other thing. Further it is set into the context of his own life by which he says that he earnestly sought to know God from his childhood and eventually he came to know God and Christ and this was by an inner light of such a consuming effect that he was left utterly and irrevocably changed. Some portion of that same period of time included a rapture into Paradise and a revealing of the better part of the substance of that which constitutes his rebuke to all Churches, ministers, and members of all Churches, without exception.
Finally please don't allegorise what is self evidently intended to be real meaning in the ordinary sense. If you do then I for one will not take you seriously. I have wondered for nearly two years why you have taken Fox so singularly as a man who stands out head and shoulders above all other believers since the apostle Paul. I have just taken this to mean something akin to affection and thus a form of exaggeration. Now that I have read this "Epistle to the Reader" I can see that George Fox made of himself a prophet equal to any apostle. I have never troubled to look before until this thread by Gary. In seeking to place some balance to what Gary was saying, whilst broadly agreeing with him, I have presented a generally supportive position to Fox. I am now quiet uncertain if I will not end up holding him to be the chief heretic of all England. I have had to try to find an unadulterated copy of the 1659 book. The link I have provided is to the 1831 original copy. I would encourage anyone to read that version no matter how difficult it may be to read, and reject all other abused volumes.
If you want to know you will simply have to read Fox's own words in their purest and least altered form yourself. Otherwise there is nothing further to say.
So here is the link again:
| 2014/8/27 5:02|