| Re: tooo,,,,,, Garrreee,,,,,plieze reed,,,...,,,!!!|
Gary, I love you brother, love your passion and your awesome contributions on this forum but please, I am pleading with you...no...I AM BEGGING YOU...please do yourself and all of us a favour and learn how to use SPELL CHECK!!! It is very hard to take you as seriously as you ought to be taken when you misspell almost every word and use punctuation and crazy multiple commas worse than a homeless man on crack!!!! My 6 year old does a better job at writing than you and he doesn't even know how to write yet!!! But seriously, I know you have your reasons and I respect that but are you even interested in trying to improve???
To be sure, most of us can interpret what you are saying, but why settle brother...I know you can come up to a new level in this...if you want to, that is?
I am speaking in love and I pray you will receive this admonishment with JOY and see it as an opportunity to grow:)
PS. If you need tips and/or pointers on where to find online classes to learn how to spell and write better, I am more than willing to send you some links.
PPS. If you had included your email in your profile I would have sent you a private note.
PPPS. Since this has been addressed publically before I didn't think it was a big deal to bring it up publically again:)
PPPPS. You are an awesome man of God...I love you and look forward to reading your replies...when I can understand them:) You are an an inspiration in every way (except spelling and writing lol)
| 2014/8/27 12:40|
| Re: |
RE: ///the Anabaptists are praised here this fourm but not so with George it seems he calls them a false sect
is it true the Anabaptist are a false sect ,,what does the fourm think///
George Fox lived from (July 1624 – 13 January 1691)
(The 17th century)
The Anabaptist that are praised on this forum are namely those of the (16th century) like : Felix Manz (1498 – 5 January 1527), Conrad Grebel (1498–1526), Michael Sattler (1495 – 20 May 1527) , Menno Simmons (1496 – 31 January 1561) etc of the (16th century)
| 2014/8/27 12:45||Profile|
| Re: |
Brenda I have read your own attempts to draw other Quakers into your views of Fox to a non effect. I have made a diligent study of the specific claims which you have made about Fox which attend to your view of Salvation and eternal life precisely by reading dozens of Quaker web sites and discussion boards. It has only been in the last 24 hours that I find myself considering the possibility that Fox may well have laid such a foundation. What I cannot find is a single piece of evidence that any Quaker alive today holds to that view if it was indeed Fox's view or not. You have said to counter this type of argument previously that quakers today are essentially far removed from what Fox taught and all the Quakers of his day believed. Now the argument has slipped to a meaning which has to do with whether anyone holds Fox in great admiration or not. Why is this the case at this precise moment Brenda?
It is because Proudpapa slipped a Google link to a book by Spurgeon in which Spurgeon makes a statement, such as the one I have said already regarding the benefit to a broad effect of Fox's ministry in helping to shape a better view and attitude to ministry. That was posted to rebut what I said that there was no benefit to Fox's ministry even within a single generation of his death. This morning before Proudpapa made that post I bought the book online. Now Proudpapa posts another link to Spurgeon only this time it has to do with Spurgeon's own attitude to Fox. This too is a silent comment and it's meaning is also clear.
Unfortunately it is a false statement because the reality is this. No man can truly love a man whom he has never met, let alone on who is deceased. If we mean that we love Christ who's life we now possess, and by that means we comprehend and love those who have been zealous for Him, than we ought to say that. But to say we love a man whom we have not met is to say that we love Christ whom we have known in the inner man. It is to love Christ whom we love and whom that man loved. The same quote clearly includes the controversy as well as the praise. If Spurgeon intended a vulgar meaning to his words then I may as well say that I love Spurgeon and intend it to mean that in some way I know Spurgeon. I do not know Spurgeon, I know Christ whom Spurgeon loved.
Anyway I can see you have no intention of addressing anything of substance. Swearing an oath does not make any man a liar unless his oath is false. No one in England was ever asked to swear a false oath which of itself prevented them living and demonstrating a true love and faith into Christ Jesus. That is except by the hand or Rome. Fox had no such experience. He was always free to practise his faith had he intended that to mean unto the Lord. His ambition was a Holy War against the Mother of Harlots which he saw as the world itself and all things that were outwardly worldly as he believed that to mean. So he had no difficulty in telling men who took their living from their ministry that they were hirelings and false shepherds all.
I know all about religious people Brenda I have been offended by them for thirty years and as I have said before some of the most hateful people I have had to do with were those who took the name of Christ. In the same vein the most liberal theologies I have come across have been from those who are more concerned with the opinion of men than with the effect of their deceptions. Niceness and nastiness go hand in hand in the Lord' name. Many hate the Lord's name because of it.
| 2014/8/27 12:49|
| Re: |
Modern Quakers study Fox and approve of him and defend him most strongly against his critics. They do not however understand that he claimed to be restored to Adam's state in the way that he meant it. They believe in gradual sanctification and see his time in Paradise as conversion whereas I see it as a further blessing, and so our paths do not meet.
But anyway Andrew, I don't think that we can gain any purpose in continuing as I do not understand your reasoning.
| 2014/8/27 13:07|
| Re: |
They do not however understand that he claimed to be restored to Adam's state in the way that he meant it.
And that Brenda is precisely my point. Over three hundred years since George Fox died and every generation since that time has missed his central meaning as to what being restored to Adam's original pristine state actually means. And not only that Brenda, but sanctification in that order of Adam's original pristine condition, is being claimed to be the only true and proper meaning of what salvation is.
Were this not so then every single minister and learned man throughout the British territories of Fox's day could not be called of that, "harlot who sits in the wilderness". Otherwise if Fox intended those words to mean something akin to personal sins, he is saying that every minister and learned man was a wretched sinner by some outward and visible means. The one is a doctrine and the other would be judgemental. Moreover Fox attributed this same meaning, though in a less condemnatory way, to everyone who sat at their feet and were taught of them in their steeple houses. He could not and would not even use the term church for fear of giving a false impression of approval.
As a matter of reality Fox went further than simply speaking of being resorted to Adam's pristine condition, but that seem hardly relevant.
I see a serious problem with your position Brenda and I truly would that I understood it and that you could explain what you believe in the depth of your heart regarding this matter. To see what others cannot see, and have not seen for nigh three hundred years is really something. I don't say that insultingly either, but it would really be something if it were true. In that regard I have wondered, as I have been reading what present day Quakers have to say about George Fox, if his peculiar ministry wasn't best left in the time it was meant for. Which may be something of what Spurgeon means when he speaks of him so affectionately. It does seem that Quakers who are clearly intending to live godly lives, as opposed to the humanist enterprise we have in the UK for the most part, simply steer a clear path away from a controversy which no one want's to really talk about. Perhaps there is in fact no real controversy at all and others have simply been left with a legacy in the fabric of English history which remembers that at one time the Quakers were held in great suspicion and thought to be a serious threat to the stability of the nation.
As to understanding my reasoning Brenda! Welcome to the party. I don't even attempt to understand it myself. I just reason as I do. I don't make doctrines and never have done. Not even seeming nice ones which encourage a spectacular opportunity to be totally self driven. Perhaps one day the Lord will give me a better portion and then I can cease from my efforts regardless as to why I feel a need to write as I do. No one is taking much notice anyway and that seems reasonable to me, so I have to believe that I am learning all the time as we all are, and that everything will work for the good according to the Lord. If you want to send me a private explanation as to what you actually believe George understood and taught his immediate fellow believers then of course I would welcome that.
There has been one moment Brenda when I did think that George Fox was speaking about arriving at a position of sinless perfection in the outer and inner man. It happened yesterday and it made me think very hard indeed. I don't really believe that it is true, but I do believe why someone would think that it could be true. And I don't mean because of a spirit of deception or a doctrine of devils. I mean because a person may have seen in revelation an eternal reality which is true in Christ and at the same time comprehended a hope and a realisation that one day we will have new bodies and we will be incapable of sin. How Fox could have translated that into a present reality of experience may not really be the issue. The issue may be how could Fox have laid that on anyone else if the very substance of it's meaning could only come by a revelation of God and would be in line with a prophetic calling and purpose of God. Given that we agree that Fox was indeed a prophet in this proper new testament meaning, how would he have made the mistake of pressing a doctrine which is actually physically impossible to live by, even if it is a reasonable hope?
I cannot believe that he did intend such a meaning and thus I cannot see that he prescribed to sinless perfection in this life. Of course I may be wrong. It is one thing to see a wondrous reality of what the innocent and perfect man Adam was like. It is also one thing to say that in Christ, the last Adam, we have been drawn back into a life relationship with Christ Himself to a place wherein we are indeed as was Adam before his fall, without sin; yet in the inner part where the Spirit dwells in newness of life. But to conclude or to miss the reality of the physical body is equal to missing the fact that despite his perfect and pristine condition, Adam did sin in his own body and by his own free will. This is where George Fox actually goes a lot further because he then goes on to speak of another effect, which I believe you are calling the second blessing, and this pertains to being seated in Christ at the right hand of God. In short it is to be in Paradise with Christ Himself, and not simple to be on earth knowing and living by the life of Christ in us, by the Holy Spirit.
For the majority of believers the part which most takes on a reality is the "on earth as in heaven part", but rarely is it the "seated in heavenly places in Christ," as a victor and conqueror in Him. Watchman Nee covers something of this in his Sit, Walk, Stand book. Yet Nee did not have these kinds of revelation where you actually experience Paradise in the direct sense that Fox did. My few seconds visit to Paradise on the night I was saved was wholly fixed and focused on one reality. That was a realisation that Christ is truly both Lord and God. This was as a distinct reality in person to the moment I first knew the Father and asked "who is Christ". George Fox has been accused severally of failing to make a proper distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I feel that this is profoundly unfair because the distinction is a false one if we intend to simply cite dead doctrines for the sake of claiming some reality. His whole emphasis was really on Christ Himself which is entirely pleasing to the Father and the very reason why the Holy Spirit was given to men.
So if I was to take my own testimony it would be a truly easy thing to say that I have reason to accept your dichotomous understanding of believing and then separately entire sanctification (I don't make that distinction of course). Wesley has been categorised in exactly the same way as per his Aldergate street experience which most insist was conversion, but which both you and I believe was another thing altogether. You believe this was entire sanctification or a second blessing, and I believe it was a revelation of inclusion in the death and resurrection of Christ on the cross and by that means the ability to apprehend eternal security. It settled his mind and put him into a state of rest.
There are no hard and fast doctrines by which men can insists that salvation is by this and this means. If we are to have doctrines let them be doctrines according to the apostles and not according to our interpretation of them. And never let them be according to what men have experienced no matter what wonderful realities such experiences may bring. The only true doctrine is Christ Himself and all that which is in Him. Hence why I don't make doctrines or go after them save for going after Christ Himself. Contending has always to do with seeking to resist anything which detracts from Christ. Similarly I cannot bring myself to defend Christ within, because Christ is more fully seated at the right hand of the Father, and you and I in Him. Looking inwards produces no good thing at all. You can see just how profoundly similar and yet different we are Brenda. I have seen Christ with my own eyes and known the touch of His hand, yet when I comprehend Christ inwardly, who I knew in Paradise physically, that witness instantaneously bears witness of Christ in heaven, not to the Spirit of Christ dwelling in me. I cannot explain things better than that, but I am certain in some as yet inexplicable way that George Fox was not lying in his ambition to a perfect sinless life, but he cannot have possibly intended that to mean sinless perfection. It may well be and it is in fact a proper ambition to live a life free from the power of sin, but sinless perfection is not that thing. How or why you believe that George Fox makes a presentation of sinless perfection beyond what I have shared I don't know, but I simply cannot believe that he intended any such thing. If he did and taking other things into account of his influence and teachings via his pamphlets and book I would have a serious problem with Him and that is a fact.
When Paul speaks of Christ in us and whether we are His or not the word is our spirits bearing witness with the Holy Spirit, crying Abba Father. This is not the same as saying we ought to naval gaze in order to comprehend Christ. If we are His then just as He bore witness of the Father, so ought our spirits to bear witness of the Father. Either we are sons and daughters or else we are not. Being taught of the Spirit must clearly always be an inward reality, yet even then why would such an enterprise of God require us to look inward. Revelation is inward, visions are essentially inward even though they may well seem before our eyes and so on. Paradise, Angels and even the very throne of Christ are outward and cannot be found inwardly. Perhaps it just me but it all seems to be a lot of effort for little meaning.
| 2014/8/27 14:49|
| Re: |
I have endeavoured to find at least one person who sums up a perverse or perhaps not so perverse version of what George Fox believed.
Here it is and as far as I can tell it corresponds almost perfectly with what Brenda believes George Fox taught.
"Those who have received him in the light, believing in his name, have the power to become a son of God, John 1:12; but one must exercise that power by repetitively waiting, listening, hearing, believing, and obeying Christ the word and light within your heart. Just believing that Jesus is the Son of God does not yield escape from condemnation; even the demons believe that Jesus is the Son of the most High God, and they tremble. If you are still sinning, you are living in condemnation that came on all men when Adam fell and lost the life of God. Out of condemnation is to be free of all sin, in fellowship with the Son and the Father, and eating from the Tree of Life with Jesus as your true Lord supplying all your spoken words and directing all your deeds.
Christianity today is an enemy of the cross, falsely teaching that the cross is not necessary; and so their believers continue to sin and thus remain slaves to sin, John 8:34. The only cross of Christianity is just decoration, hanging on the wall or worn as jewelry. Christianity leaves people living in the lusts of their flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts of their minds, just like the rest of men; they are left in their sinful natures, walking according to the flesh, whose aim is satisfying things of the flesh; in their lusts, desires, affections, pleasures, pride, anger, vanity, fear, worries, plans, etc.; they are left walking in the ways of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air (Satan) Eph 2:2-3. If you die still sinning, you are banned from heaven.
After saying these things this 72 year old couple then say the following:
"For those who think we are evil, stupid, or who feel threatened by the message of this site:
First, We sympathize with you. To some of you this is shocking and attacks what you hold to be your sacred beliefs. We too were told by many "experts" that there was nothing to do other than accept Jesus; confess that Jesus is Lord; get baptized; according to some, receive the Holy Spirit; go to services; and study the Bible for growth.
But, after all of the above and more, I still had problems: like anger and lust. And, no matter how many times I was 'saved,' I failed to measure up to Christ's admonitions, among them: Be perfect, therefore, as your Fatherwho is in heaven is perfect, Mat 5:48, and anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, (Mat 5:28). All of the Bible's warnings, the requirements, and qualifying conditions were being ignored by Christendom. And I could see leading Buddhists and Hindus who were far more peaceful, gentle, and godly than any of the living leaders in Christendom. But I knew Jesus was the right way; his teachings and record were so far superior to the founders of all other faiths. So there was something very wrong, something that everyone in Christendom was missing. We knew the early church was full of miracles and holy, perfect men with the power of God for miracles that healed entire towns; but what happened? So I started researching Christian history, and stumbled across the early Quaker writings; and then to the founder of the Quakers, George Fox. And there it was again. The power of Paul, the power of Peter, in many thousands of early Quakers, (modern Quakers are radically different). So, holiness was and is possible; power was and is possible. The Kingdom of Heaven can be entered while on earth."
I said I didn't know of anyone who believed in sinless perfection as a condition for eternal life but I was wrong this couple believe in exactly that.
| 2014/8/27 18:21|
| Re: |
Andrew I am having to pinch myself to believe what I am reading from you at the moment, that you can see what Fox actually said. I would be more than happy to discuss my view of Fox's teaching by email if Greg will not allow it to take place on the forum.
I found the Worthington's some time ago and tried to make contact to no avail. I have made a new attempt.They were indeed the only people that I found on the internet to understand Fox as myself. They are perhaps in their 80's now. I was disappointed that they give little testimony however. I had actually forgotten all about them but will do some more reading on their site and pray for contact if it is the right timing in the Lord.
George Fox's mystical theology was the via triplex and after much research I have found others - the woman in the wilderness, who taught the same way to holiness as opposed to the two stages espoused in the evangelical revivals, which to me was merely a stopping short of the fullness though still to be commended.
I am reading writings of these mystics at present, mainly from the 16 century Spanish Carmelites but I have been reading earlier writings on the same dotrine. I am also attending a conference on mystical theology held by Durham University next week which should be interesting as they will be speaking about St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila whom I am reading at the moment.
But to get back to the Worthington's, my own experience has been the same, in that I found my Christian walk to be far less than I expected on reading the new testament and despite great efforts could not escape from the bondage of certain sins (not gross sinning) and lukewarmness. After finding the high way of holiness through evangelical writings I came across the early Quakers and found that Fox's beliefs went further and were exactly what the Lord had shown me.
| 2014/8/28 2:05|
| Re: |
Mark I agree with you about Gary's writing and would to see some effort from him although I can perfectly understand his spelling now and even find it amusing. But many others reading for the first time will not and it does show some respect if he is displaying attempts to improve.
I am sure that many here will be more than happy to help you Gary by giving you some tuition on spelling and typing.
Here is a start, instead of doing ,,,,,,,,, instead of using spacing, which is the most annoying thing you do for me and which Greg has already spoken about, use the long bar beneath the letters pressing each time, once to make each space.
I also find it annoying when you don't make an effort to spell people's names correctly like John Wesley's even when you are replying to someone who does spell it correctly.
Your contributions however are appreciated and you obviously love the Lord dearly.
| 2014/8/28 2:28|
| Re: |
Thanks awakened for your kind words ,i think .
Look man I'll try for your sake to stop the comas and use a few more full stops .
the sad part is dude , i am using a spell check ,well most of the time ,i missed a few posts in this thread .
Just think of me as d.l moody ,but not as godly ,he apparently was bad at spelling too .
You got good discernment im not interested in improving i would rather spend that time reading my bible or praying ,but hey i dont plan to wright a book .
i was that homeless man on dope ironically ,so old habits die hard ,not the dope .
Well just think you wont need to do a course on Egyptian hieroglyphs after a few more months of reading my comments ,but think at least i put in a few full stops and comas ,unlike our original manuscripts,they had none at all .Maybe im just trying to be biblical .
And you never no ,maybe if you had the gift of interpreting toungs you wouldn't"t get so annoyed ,it will probably work on my comments as well ,ha.
Andrew thanks for all your comments ,it is always good to read ,you should with out doubt wright a book , i would certainly read it ,what ever it was about .
| 2014/8/28 2:38||Profile|
| Re: |
Gee thanks Brenda for that advice , and kind words I'll try harder ,but i would not expect a major change. Just use the inner light sister . Im sure gods spirit will cater for buffoon like my self
| 2014/8/28 2:47||Profile|