SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : a quote from George fox suspect

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
Why Don't we ask Greg if Fox was a heretic? He must have read a bit about him whilst writing his latest book.



That strikes me as divisive so probably best left alone. As to everything else Brenda I have provided the source and a read will show whether I have accurately reflected Fox and his claims with regard to the origin of his revelation as well as the specifics regarding his manner and customs of worship. Also his total and complete condemnation of all persons, who are other than his practise. Also whether he sets his movement in context of an end time restoration of the true church and whether he sought to claim that the true church was only to be found in his custom and practise. Its all there look for it. I have and I see it plainly and easily.

 2014/8/27 9:29
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: a quote from George fox suspect

Spurgeon on George Fox : http://books.google.com/books?id=V6cQodHtxAwC&pg=PA4&dq=%22george%2Bfox%22&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=%22george%2Bfox%22&f=false

 2014/8/27 9:51Profile









 Re:


Quote:
Gary wrote: thats just it brenda the scripture doesnt teach we can recieve infalable revalation as the apostals did





Quote:
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 2.27

If we are really in Christ, we have the same anointing to teach us all things

 2014/8/27 10:07









 Re:

Quote:
On that basis he condemned all others



His disputes were with fat greedy ministers who claimed the name of Christ but did not live accordingly..

Quote:
Fox made the mistake of imposing his own calling on others



He did no such thing. He preached his message in the streets that a believer cannot be a Christian and sin and thousands were convicted and followed his society. They chose the pathway of suffering and could have left at any time.

Quote:
He did not he accepted the death of women and children starving to death in filthy prisons as evidence of the work of Christ.



The weaker Quakers in prison were replaced by the stronger ones more than willingly. Where is your evidence of women and children dying in prisons?

Quote:
The apostle Paul did not provoke authorities



And neither did Fox. He preached his message and many were saved, and then the churches came against him. They started it by persecuting the Quakers. He did not lead a crusade. He was forced into defending the Friends.

 2014/8/27 10:20









 Re:

Parliament enacted laws which forbade non-Anglican religious meetings of more than five people, essentially making Quaker meetings illegal. Fox counseled his followers to openly violate laws that attempted to suppress the movement, and many Friends, including women and children, were jailed over the next two and a half decades. Meanwhile, Quakers in New England had been banished (and some executed), and Charles was advised by his councillors to issue a mandamus condemning this practice and allowing them to return. Fox was able to meet some of the New England Friends when they came to London, stimulating his interest in the colonies. Fox was unable to travel there immediately: he was imprisoned again in 1664 for his refusal to swear the oath of allegiance, and on his release in 1666 was preoccupied with organisational matters—he normalized the system of monthly and quarterly meetings throughout the country, and extended it to Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox


As much as I detest wikipedia for its broad inaccuracies where spiritual matter are concerned the historical facts cannot be fabricated.

Brenda I have come to feel that you have no idea what I am pointing to when I make such claims about imposing ones calling on others. There is nothing to be done about it and I can see that this whole exercise is largely fruitless and will not be resolved. If even the least small point cannot be understood what chance of understanding anything really substantive. Paul the apostle did submit to all authorities. George Fox openly encouraged disobedience. It is a historical, documented and real fact. He was examined in prison not for his faith but because of the implications of what his attitude might mean for national security at a time of massive and serious civil disharmony where insurrection meant loss of life on a large scale.

The prophet does not have the right to impose by reason of his influence his understanding, insight, vision and it's meaning, on all others and require them to live by that same revelation. If the matter is simply Christ and who the Lord really is and what the Lord has done for men and how the Lord would have each individual to live, as well as by what means, then let that be in the simplicity of faith. If it becomes something else then it is want to be seen as heresy and rebellion by others. That is the way of it. Paul was firstly a Prophet. He had the faith of a prophet and he had the revelation of a prophet. The overwhelming number of sincere believers do not have the same precise and easy understanding which the prophet has. To mistake ones own calling with the portion of all is a serious error and it will lead to the suffering of countless others. History is filled with such men who led what amounted to rebellions and cost others their lives and their peace.

If I showed you that there are existing records of women and children dying in English prisons because they were taken as surety for their husbands who would not pay their taxes in obedience to the vision of Fox would you even care Brenda? I rather doubt it somehow. We are wasting our time here and I ought to know better.

 2014/8/27 10:48









 Re:

Quote:
amrkelly wrote:
Parliament enacted laws which forbade non-Anglican religious meetings of more than five people, essentially making Quaker meetings illegal. Fox counseled his followers to openly violate laws that attempted to suppress the movement, and many Friends, including women and children, were jailed over the next two and a half decades.



I don't see a problem with this. We are instructed to obey Christ and not the authorities if it conflicts with scripture and scripture tells us to meet together. The early Quakers went by their own convictions, Fox was adamant that men do that, that is, following their own light rather than obey others. He was not a dictator.

You are determined to place him in a role he did not have.

 2014/8/27 11:13
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 C.H. Spurgeon on George Fox :

"Here is George Fox, the Quaker, a strange sort of body it is true, going about the world making much noise and stir; but I love the man with all my soul, because he had an awful respect for the presence of God and an intense love for everything spiritual. How is it that I cannot help loving George Herbert and George Fox, who are in some things complete opposites? Because they both loved the Master. I will defy you, if you have any love to Jesus Christ to pick or choose among his people; you may hate as much as you will the shells in which the pearls lie, and the dross with which the gold is mixed, but the true, the precious blood-bought gold, the true pearl, heaven-dyed, you must esteem. You must love a spiritual man find him wherever you may. Such love does exist among the people of God, and if anybody says it does not, I can only fear that the speaker is unfit to judge. If I come across a man in whom there is the Spirit of Christ, I must love him, and if I did not I should prove I was not in the unity at all.

 2014/8/27 11:32Profile









 Re: C.H. Spurgeon on George Fox :

Thanks proudpapa for your quotes. Indeed those who love spiritual men cannot help but love Fox and he gained the esteem and love from all of his followers. I have never known a leader spoken of more highly. It is the reason I love him too. He was passionate about the Lord and cared nothing for his life or safety when he was subject to persecution. The early Christians were persecuted too and their families will have suffered. It is unavoidable for those who will not deny Christ and who come in the fire line of the enemy.

 2014/8/27 11:52









 Re:

Quote:
I don't see a problem with this. We are instructed to obey Christ and not the authorities if it conflicts with scripture and scripture tells us to meet together. The early Quakers went by their own convictions, Fox was adamant that men do that, that is, following their own light rather than obey others. He was not a dictator.



Brenda the only determination I have is to understand why you are the only person I have come across who has a view of Fox which sets him far and above all other views I have read. Even the link which Proudpapa silently slipped into the thread does not lay claim to anything more than an acknowledgement that Fox had an influence on Christendom with regard to the way ministry was perceived and thereby made way for a more sincere held appointment by some men. Wesley and Whitfield were beneficiaries of that reality.

George fox refused to swear any oaths for example. At a time of civil war and the necessity of laying a lawful foundation for the government to hold men to account for their actions which gave rise to dissent amounting to possible rebellion, oaths were a necessary instrument. Otherwise the government could do as it pleased and act without the law altogether, That was not England and despite the undoubted persecution of Quakers the particular source of my concerns has little to do with those kind of things. I have cited my source and it is easily read if anyone wants to get a sense on what George Fox believed and bore witness to by his own hand as to the meaning, origins of the Quaker movement, and the basis of his whole contention with all churches in Britain and the Colonies.

As for taking things literally how simple a matter it is to say in reply to your ease of dismissal, that Christ said, "where two or three are gathered together in My name &c" I think that covers the Law of England don't you? What are men about when they resist all laws which require them to swear legal oaths, or pay taxes, or show respect to those in authority by a traditional means of removing the hat (men only). Your view of Fox seems to me to go beyond what is reasonable in the sense that it has given rise to a peculiar doctrine which you say that Fox promoted. I have to agree that in his words there does seem to be something resembling a fanatical commitment to taking spiritual truths so literally that he was unable to even flinch in the face of persecution. These all have nothing to do with the real meaning of eternal life and all have to do with an elitist view of salvation which sets all men as children of a spiritual whore, except that men experience a similitude of revelation inwardly by which they are similarly assured of eternity, arising from which they too are prepared to suffer all things and resist all laws and decrees which by that reckoning incites them to a disfellowship with Christ in the inner man should they obey those laws.

That is by any stretch of the imagination a serious place to arrive at if what we are speaking about is paying taxes and doffing the hat, or swearing an oath to ones country after a civil war which gave rise to rebellion and insurrection and the cost of thousands upon thousand of lives. The link I gave here is a document published in 1659. The civil war ended in 1652 and the period of the document is the preceding seven years. It is before any significant changes occurred with regard to the Quakers as a religious body, and very nearly reflects as much a political reality in view of the close relationship between Church and State, Fox may well have been entirely concerned with spiritual matters and realities but the very men he ridiculed and condemned were of the State because they were of the Church. The crucible of the civil war was not a separating of Church and State it was a separating of Rome from England and Catholicism from the true Protestant faith. It was a separating of the right of kings to the right of Parliament. To make the judgement which Fox made at that time was a guaranteed cause of persecution for no more reason than political reality.

His emphasis on doctrinal matters is irrelevant to me. No one is going to perish because they lay the emphasis on an inner witness as the source of their obedience, even though they may be led outwardly by a very devil, of masterful skills and manipulations. The silence of Quaker meeting was a silence to avoid the outer man be he a devil or otherwise. We live or die on the ground of Christ crucified for sin and nothing more. That is eternal truth and all else has to do with the coming kingdom and reign of Christ over the nations. I have no contention with Fox and no direct interest in him either. Its all about you Brenda! I hope you sense my sincerity because I am being sincere even if I am frustrated beyond words.

 2014/8/27 11:55









 Re:

Quote:
amrkelly wrote: George fox refused to swear any oaths for example. At a time of civil war and the necessity of laying a lawful foundation for the government to hold men to account for their actions which gave rise to dissent amounting to possible rebellion, oaths were a necessary instrument. Otherwise the government could do as it pleased and act without the law altogether, That was not England and despite the undoubted persecution of Quakers the particular source of my concerns has little to do with those kind of things.



Once again you accusations are regarding whether Fox should obey the government or Christ:

Mat 5:33-37

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Quakers, Mennonites, and members of some other Christian sects choose to not to swear oaths because they believe firmly in telling the truth at all times, and feel that swearing to tell the truth goes against their religious values because it suggests that they might lie at other times.

Who do you obey and why do you find issue with a man who obeyed Christ rather than men?

Far from having exceptional views on Fox, go to any Conservative Quaker site and you will find many with the same views.


 2014/8/27 12:15





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy