| Re: |
that link would not work for me Andrew ,,,but as a read through the beginnings of that book ,,that is exactly how i understand his rebukes he and the quakers are the holy real Christian and the rest all the denominations are apostatized and dead ,,,,that is the other major falt i see with foxes preaching he elevates his own revaluations as infallible as the pope does and condemns all those who dont agree with and he says that he and the true Christian who are quakers do not need teachers
these three issues a very problematic and devicive
| 2014/8/27 5:08||Profile|
| Re: |
I have renewed the link Gary. Apart from that I cannot explain why it does not work for yourself. Here is another link to a scanned copy at Harvard University Library.
The reason why I am saying read the unaltered original is because all other copies are set in context of a defence of Fox. In fact the eight volumes produced in 1831 were intended to address a claim that the Society of Friends had abandoned George Fox's original position. The volumes were produced to examine if that was in fact the case by seeking to set out a best possible insight into the time and writing of George Fox from his own hand.
My deepest concern is not precisely with the obvious contentious nonsense of those who hated Fox, but at the moment at least rests on the fact that his singular focus and uncompromising position was entirely based on a revelation or rapture to Paradise. In that context he claimed to have received in an instant of time a full and persistent account of the state of the catholic church, the planned redemption to an original Adamic state and then the fullness of redemption in a seating down in Christ at the right hand of the Father. When Brenda speaks about Fox turning England upside down we have to realise that he provoked a deliberate condemnation of every single part of all churches and all believers. He literally provoked this outcome by his own hand. What is more it led to the suffering and deaths of many people through more than a twenty-five year period involving at its height tens of thousand of men women and children who were literally hated because of this provocation. I know that some will say the Quakers were hated because of Christ, but I would say that we do not have to overwhelmingly condemn all others as apostate and lost, who take the name of Christ, to an end of leaving them with no other recourse than to say we are mad. To then deliberately attend their meetings and belay their words with our own, amounting to a total condemnation, seems remarkable.
Just remember whatever good came from this activity of Fox is was absent when John Wesley began his ministry, the same is true for George Whitfield both of whom were repeatedly dealt with badly by the population of England. In the case of Wesley that specifically meant the same part of rural Leicestershire that Fox first ministered in. It also means just one generation after the death of George Fox England openly hated the gospel again. Having lived in this part of Leicestershire for some years I have seen the legacy myself. It is dead as death itself. I preached with my partner in the gospel throughout this part of England and received nothing but rebukes or else indifference.
Anyway Gary as you started this, where are your answers brother. Simply expressing doubts won't do any of us any good. We need answers.
| 2014/8/27 6:03|
| Re: |
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.
I don't see him saying that they had to be Quakers - would you supply a reference please?
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!
I have no problem with putting him under the microscope. I don't think that he was God and do not agree with him 100% for example on how to treat children (he advised spanking) but if you are going to say your understanding is superior to those who actually knew him and called him the most enlightened man what ever walked bar the apostles, then fire away.
The OT prophets had a similar message to him and yes I think he was a prophet. His message is valid for all times, in that most who call themselves believers are apostate but his main focus was on priests/ministers who misled the flock.
| 2014/8/27 6:31|
| Re: |
Andrew what exactly do you mean by my answers
i definitely dont claim to have the answers
questions are more the reasons why i started the thread
mainly is it OK as a bible believing Christian elevate extrabibical revelation to the level of scripture as fox did ,,also is it OK to claim and practice that we dont need teachers because we have the anointing and no all things
i could also add to that is it OK to rebuke the whole church as fox has done
my answer is sub jest to falbility but is still no
i was wondering what others on the forum thought
maybe if it is appropriate we can go through scripture and see why we think it is OK or not to practice believe and preach the above points
another thing,,if we find that that is not sound biblical doctrine ,,i personaly dont think we should esteem men or woman who make errors like that ,who go beyond what is written
i personally wanted to except fox as sound and biblical ,,but the more i read ,i noticed very questionable teachings ,,that i cant help, and so far only Brenda has defended fox ,but as you noticed with her own words which change the meaning of foxes clear literal words
Brenda with all respect others also new him and didnt feel that way as you described above but the opposite ,,that is a dead argument ,,others who new the Joseph smith also thought he was the greatest prophet
scripture has examples and doctrines ,, do our lives and our beliefs line up with gods revealed will ,,rather then what our wives husbands or congregations think of us ,,because we make mistakes and can be effected by bias and emotions and even flesh ,but the scriptures dont change its meanings and examples
| 2014/8/27 7:15||Profile|
| Re: |
his singular focus and uncompromising position was entirely based on a revelation or rapture to Paradise.
Again, where did you get that from? What transpired in his experience of Paradise was that he was sanctified. His revelations came about at different times.
When Brenda speaks about Fox turning England upside down we have to realise that he provoked a deliberate condemnation of every single part of all churches and all believers. He literally provoked this outcome by his own hand.
The outcome was due to the reaction to his words. The anger came from the priests etc. The Quakers were a peaceable people but were called to a holy war in declaring the apostasy of the church and hopefully God will raise a man up today to do the same. The Quaker meetings were invaded, burned down and the Quakers hounded. Fox only stood up and spoke the truth.
The deadness of the north extends to my area too ie Durham. Nothing to do with the Quakers or Wesley.
| 2014/8/27 7:23|
| Re: |
mainly is it OK as a bible believing Christian elevate extrabibical revelation to the level of scripture as fox did
I don't know why you keep repeating that - Fox quoted scripture frequently and would not accept anything that could not be confirmed by it.
| 2014/8/27 7:27|
| Re: |
Why Don't we ask Greg if Fox was a heretic? He must have read a bit about him whilst writing his latest book.
| 2014/8/27 7:35|
| Re: |
thats just it brenda the scripture doesnt teach we can recieve infalable revalation as the apostals did
it doest matter if we quote scripture till ya blue in the face ,,again joseph smith quoted scripture and even claimed to be a bible believer
i was repeating that point for andrews sake not yours ,you allready no i said that a couple of times
| 2014/8/27 7:49||Profile|
| 2014/8/27 8:18|
| Re: |
Andrew what exactly do you mean by my answers
I was looking for answers Gary rather than offering them, nor did I think you had given any. I could see that you were asking rather than answering. My concern is really a simple one and it has to do with Brenda and her persistence through time that Fox unique in all history with the exception of the apostles themselves. I have read this claim from Brenda on various web sites going back over twelve years. Whenever it comes up for comment Brenda appears to draw back from it. Frankly I can see that I am really best not participating in this forum. It is much easier for people to simply make claims and by that means to influence others than it is to support those claims. In this instance there is not doubt whatsoever that Fox (and he includes others in this) believed that he had arrived at a perfectly restored and God given appointment to a proper and foundational understanding of the meaning of the Church. On that basis he condemned all others and it is a reality that practising silence, and the inner light of revelation formed a central core to that meaning.
I have previously thought that Fox was misunderstood when Brenda has made certain claims about his teachings. I now think that she is right about his claims for himself and his claims about what salvation means. I also see that in the eyes of Fox you were not saved if intact you did not have that inner light so as to know as he knew those things concerning Christ which is the gift of all prophets and not necessarily the gift of all men and women. Fox made the mistake of imposing his own calling on others. Therein is a profound and destructive reality. He failed to comprehend the meaning of the prophetic, and the nature of prophecy, with which all believers can at any time know profound and wonderful things.
If he was called to suffer then he should have suffered himself and not have drawn tens of thousands of other into it's meaning. The prophet is not called to lead crusades which result in countless others being harmed by it and call that ministry to the body of Christ. The apostle Paul did not provoke authorities so that the result would be the hatred of all other believers. In fact he submitted to all authorities and in doing so he was able to bear witness of Christ in a manner which did not reflect such a total and utter condemnation of all others. Fox did precisely the opposite and taught others to do the same by example, Even down to paying taxes, whether to show respect to others in the way of removing the hat and many other instances.
England was in the grip of civil war and so much of his activities went unchallenged. When the war ended he was taken to task and fully. Whether he made much of it or not he was the de facto leader of many thousands of men women and children. The majority suffered because they followed him. Otherwise we have to say that Christ Himself enlightened every single man women and child to be of the same mind as Fox, and that this mind is the mind of Christ. If we say that then we also have to say that Fox was a prophet equal to the apostle Paul and as significant as the apostle Paul. Where is the evidence of it? There is none. No one can even agree on what Fox actually believed himself precisely.
So if we agree that the same thing could be said of the apostle Paul (disagreement concerning his teachings) then where does that leave us? It leaves us in the same place the church has always been and that is a place where there are divisions. There were such distinctions even amongst the Apostles. Fox massively over simplified Scriptural reality and he did it on the basis of a profound experience of being caught up to Paradise and an subsequent outpouring of the Holy Spirit. If Fox was minded to suffer then he ought to have suffered and spared others. He did not he accepted the death of women and children starving to death in filthy prisons as evidence of the work of Christ. He gloried in suffering, not just in his own body but taught others to believe that their suffering was evidence of the same reality which came by his own calling.
And if you ask yourself what all this suffering was really about you will find that it was to do with laying hold of Christ Himself. And that is where some on here have erred. You do not have to suffer anything to lay hold of Christ unto eternal life, nor will suffering preserve eternal life. It is the free gift of God. Christ suffered Himself in order that all men can lay hold of Him in peace. The difference may well be the difference between heresy and truth.
| 2014/8/27 8:20|