Quakers!

[phil36]

On the basis that they are not an official recognised christian institution - no. I've read it's not really a christian denomination it's an organisation which accepts both christians and non-christians. Sort of like the free masons. You can be a quaker and a christian, or a quaker and a non-christian.





Is there any way to tell whether these beliefs differ more widely than any other denomination?



Depends what they mean by 'part'. If they mean that there is more truth out there, then that is correct. This is basically true, the bible itself says it is not a complete record:

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.






Do they mean a conscience? If so, then yes God has given every man a conscience. That is, a moral consciousness. If they mean the light is the Holy Spirit..then no that is wrong.

You have made a good post Mahogony. I personally don't know all the ins and outs of Quakers, but will find out.

I think even the Children of God belive more of Christianity than the Quakers do.


I know that there is truth outside of the bible.. But that is not what the Quakers mean.. I should have said they regard the bible as a totally Holy book, it contains some of God's word, in other words the whole of scripture is not inspired.

When they say conscience, I don't think this is fully inline with having 'A' conscience, it is the inner self I suppose, to contrast maybe Buddhism. It is that part of you that is God! does that sound Christian?

Anyhow if there is anyone who know anything about Quakers.... anyone who knows their beliefs. please let us know. it is always good to learn

Phil

 

[worldlover]

according to my research, Quakers are classified as "Conservative Christians".

 

[phil36]

according to my research, Quakers are classified as "Conservative Christians".

your research is wrong then...

within their own umbrella organizations the Quakers are a mix punch, with the minority being conservative.. but that is not the same as a conservative Christian.

Phil

 

[karuna]

you can decide all you want Karuna.. I have my own thoughts and I have stated most of them above....

Now what do you think?

Phil

I think, 'Phil,' that you're stacking the deck for some unknown reason. If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, that's fine.

 

[phil36]

I think, 'Phil,' that you're stacking the deck for some unknown reason. If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, that's fine.

Hello Karuna, If you think I am "stacking the Deck" by all means join in and tells us what you think.

Your questions are unanswerable, basically as have have misred why I was asking. It is very simple. are quakers born again Christians.

You wanted to know what I was going to do with the answers, well first of have you got one? secondly, i am not going to do anything with he answers it is a discussion forum not a book writing club looking for ideas.

Anyhow, If you feel that I was ''stacking the deck'' then please put forth your thesis and 'unstack the deck'.

I was only putting forth the limited information I had on quakers and it seems we all have a limited understanding of them, unless you can enlighten us Karuna?

Phil

 

[karuna]

Your questions are unanswerable, basically as have have misred why I was asking.

My questions were simple, 'phil.' First of all, why did you write the name in quotes? When we, by which I mean speakers of English, talk about people, we don't tend to put their names in quotes. This is often done, however, around pseudonyms and it can be used in a pejorative or sarcastic sense.

For instance, I could write 'Pope' Benedict instead of Pope Benedict to indicate that I don't really recognize the office of the Pope but that it's a convenient word. It's a so-called Pope rather than a Pope proper. My question is - is that what you were doing there? Do you believe it was a fake name? Do you intend to show some disdain? If it wasn't your intention to communicate personal dislike of the man or that you didn't believe that this was his true name, then you can simply say so.

The question isn't that difficult. It would have been done with a couple of posts ago if you'd taken it at face value. Why did you put the man's name in quotes?

secondly, i am not going to do anything with he answers it is a discussion forum not a book writing club looking for ideas.

It's a little amusing that you say my questions are unanswerable in the course of answering them. "Nothing" is a valid answer to the question I asked.

Of course, I think it's a waste of time to drag out random religious groups and discuss them if you don't intend on doing something with the answer. Worse, I think it puts us at a number of spiritual risks, to play judge in our head when we're not sitting down with an actual practitioner of the faith in question. However, I have the answer I came for - you're not going to do anything with what we discuss here.

 

[karuna]

Anyhow, If you feel that I was ''stacking the deck'' then please put forth your thesis and 'unstack the deck'.

To get to the meat of my response, this is what I take the most issue with:

So are the quakers Christians, or just like other fringe distractments like the JWS and Mormons,and the infamous cult ' the children of God'.

Here we have a choice to make - either the Quakers are Christians or they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the Children of God. The subtle error here is that we're judging people by their external religious affiliations, by the doctrinal statements their groups make, and not by the state of their heart.

Do we say that anybody who identifies as Christian is necessarily a Christian? Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons identify themselves as Christian, after all - merely saying that you're a Christian doesn't suffice. By similar reasoning, however, even saying you're a Quaker doesn't mean you subscribe to all the doctrines of Quakerism. In other words, even if strict Quakerism is incompatible with Christianity, being a Quaker doesn't mean you're not a Christian.

There is an enormous difference between judging a group and judging the heart. In fact, it often happens that God sustains the faithful among the plain ungodly. Is it impossible that there are people who call themselves Quakers who are Christian in a way we'd be willing to accept?

The mistake is this - if Quakerism isn't Christianity, then Quakers aren't Christians. You create stereotypical Quaker phantoms in your head and judge them. It would be a better use of your time to examine the doctrines, to figure out which of them you do not believe, and to take issue with those. If you insist on classifying individuals, then deal with actual individuals, real life people, not just those you've cooked up for the sake of a mental exercise.

The way it's set up now, however, we either accept Quakerism as a valid expression of Christianity or say that Quakers aren't Christian. This is what I mean by stacking the deck - if a person like me doesn't want to conclude that Quakers aren't Christian, then by this setup we have to accept all of Quakerism, which we may be unwilling to do.

 

[QuestionTime]

On the basis that they are not an official recognised christian institution - no. I've read it's not really a christian denomination it's an organisation which accepts both christians and non-christians. Sort of like the free masons. You can be a quaker and a christian, or a quaker and a non-christian.

Is there any way to tell whether these beliefs differ more widely than any other denomination?

Read George Fox's journal online. I have only read a little bit, but I will testify on his behalf regarding what I have read, that this man sincerely loved Jesus and was a godly man.

Do they mean a conscience? If so, then yes God has given every man a conscience. That is, a moral consciousness. If they mean the light is the Holy Spirit..then no that is wrong.

That's what I am wondering. I haven't read enough yet, but I believe that what this refers to is that God has given some degree of grace to men by which they might turn to Him. Sorry that I don't know more yet because I really am not a person who enjoys reading.

And let's not forget how that every church in history begins corrupting itself after their founder has died. We now have leaders from nearly every denomination - Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans - who bow to the Pope as their supreme head.

Quest

 

[MahogonySnail]

yes and acceptance of female and homosexual priests etc etc.

Well Catholics often point to the corruption as proof that these groups should come back to the 'mother church'.

 

[QuestionTime]

Here we have a choice to make - either the Quakers are Christians or they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the Children of God. The subtle error here is that we're judging people by their external religious affiliations, by the doctrinal statements their groups make, and not by the state of their heart.

There is an enormous difference between judging a group and judging the heart. In fact, it often happens that God sustains the faithful among the plain ungodly. Is it impossible that there are people who call themselves Quakers who are Christian in a way we'd be willing to accept?

The mistake is this - if Quakerism isn't Christianity, then Quakers aren't Christians. You create stereotypical Quaker phantoms in your head and judge them. It would be a better use of your time to examine the doctrines, to figure out which of them you do not believe, and to take issue with those. If you insist on classifying individuals, then deal with actual individuals, real life people, not just those you've cooked up for the sake of a mental exercise.

The way it's set up now, however, we either accept Quakerism as a valid expression of Christianity or say that Quakers aren't Christian. This is what I mean by stacking the deck - if a person like me doesn't want to conclude that Quakers aren't Christian, then by this setup we have to accept all of Quakerism, which we may be unwilling to do.

Praise to God for you Karuna! You truly understand what matters most to God. There are many Catholics in heaven. Possibly some Jehovah's Witnesses too, and George Fox I bet also.

John Wesley:
3. We may go a step farther yet: Men may differ from us in their opinions, as well as their expressions, and nevertheless be partakers with us of the same precious faith. It is possible they may not have a distinct apprehension of the very blessing which they enjoy: Their ideas may not be so clear, and yet their experience may be as sound, as ours. There is a wide difference between the natural faculties of men, their understandings in particular; And that difference is exceedingly increased by the manner of their education. Indeed, this alone may occasion an inconceivable difference in their opinions of various kinds; and why not upon this head, as well as on any other? But still, though their opinions, as well as expressions, may be confused and inaccurate, their hearts may cleave to God through the Son of his love, and be truly interested in his righteousness.

4. Let us then make all that allowance to others, which, were we in their place, we would desire for ourselves. Who is ignorant (to touch again on that circumstance only) of the amazing power of education? And who that knows it, can expect, suppose, a member of the Church of Rome, either to think or speak clearly on this subject? And yet, if we had heard even dying Bellarmine cry out, -- when he was asked, "Unto which of the saints wilt thou turn?" -- _Fidere meritis Christi tutissimum; "It is safest to trust in the merits of Christ;" would we have affirmed that, not withstanding his wrong opinions, he had no share in his righteousness?

 

[phil36]

To get to the meat of my response, this is what I take the most issue with:



Here we have a choice to make - either the Quakers are Christians or they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the Children of God. The subtle error here is that we're judging people by their external religious affiliations, by the doctrinal statements their groups make, and not by the state of their heart. ok, I can tell you for a fact, that 'the children of God have a heart for Jesus like you wouldn't believe and put us to shame when it come to evangelizing. so in our mindset you are saying they have salvation and their brand of Christianity (if you can call it that) is as valid as within the main? this would also pertain to JW and mormons.. their path to God is the same.

May we include Hindu's, Muslims, buddhists, we might aswell for we cannot know as this is what you are hinting at. all roads lead to the same path.

Now I know that you are saying that 'some Individuals' might be saved and we don't know it. this may be true, so does that mean that theit doctrines (JW, Mormons etc) are correct, therefore it leads to the same conclusion all roads lead to the same destination?

Do we say that anybody who identifies as Christian is necessarily a Christian? Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons identify themselves as Christian, after all - merely saying that you're a Christian doesn't suffice. By similar reasoning, however, even saying you're a Quaker doesn't mean you subscribe to all the doctrines of Quakerism. In other words, even if strict Quakerism is incompatible with Christianity, being a Quaker doesn't mean you're not a Christian. And you point is? this is just general rambling.

There is an enormous difference between judging a group and judging the heart. In fact, it often happens that God sustains the faithful among the plain ungodly. Is it impossible that there are people who call themselves Quakers who are Christian in a way we'd be willing to accept? God sustains all, everything, so it doesnt happen often it happens all the time as in, all time! and I have never said it is impossible! you are romanticizing and not giving facts Karuna. is it possible that someone is a mormon and and yet a Christian ??????

The mistake is this - if Quakerism isn't Christianity, then Quakers aren't Christians. You create stereotypical Quaker phantoms in your head and judge them. It would be a better use of your time to examine the doctrines, to figure out which of them you do not believe, and to take issue with those. If you insist on classifying individuals, then deal with actual individuals, real life people, not just those you've cooked up for the sake of a mental exercise. So Karuna you are making bold statements as you always do, but usually tend to be rants. Why oh why oh why are you insisting that I am dealing with individuals. as I have said I am not an expert on Quakers yet so far what I have found out, doesnt sound scriptural, however if you can happen to stumble upon any of their Doctrines please let us all know. infact if you had been observant, this is the whole reason for this thread, not for mindless, and basically ill-informed ramblings like you have, with no content except to try and attack me and tell me what is what, when you obviously have not got a clue yourself.

The way it's set up now, however, we either accept Quakerism as a valid expression of Christianity or say that Quakers aren't Christian. This is what I mean by stacking the deck - if a person like me doesn't want to conclude that Quakers aren't Christian, then by this setup we have to accept all of Quakerism, which we may be unwilling to do. Again, sentiments instead of facts.

I have shown in my original post what some of the things Quakers hold as truth, now can you either rebut this or confirm it, or can you tell us the doctrines of the religious society of Friends. For some reason you ramble on about individuals. I presume these individuals you talk about are not really Quakers, just like we have pretenders in Church?


So to actually be of any help in this thread Karuna, are Quakers Christian, and how did you come to that conclusion?

Phil

 

[phil36]

I think it is important for Christians not to be fooled by romantic sentiments. and an all inclusiveness that you seem to be putting forth Karuna?

 

[karuna]

My point is and has been that God does not judge a person by referencing their church's doctrinal statement. Neither should we, though we should feel free to speak about the statement itself. So, conclude if you like that Quakerism is not Christianity. I may or may not agree. However, I am unwilling to conclude either way that a Quaker is or isn't a Christian. This becomes even harder when we consider them as a whole.

I am not saying that all paths lead to the same place. I'm saying you and I are very rarely in a place to tell where
on the map someone is. Their church is only one of many clues.

 

[QuestionTime]

I think it is important for Christians not to be fooled by romantic sentiments. and an all inclusiveness that you seem to be putting forth Karuna?

Please read my Wesley quote again:

And yet, if we had heard even dying Bellarmine cry out, -- when he was asked, "Unto which of the saints wilt thou turn?" -- _Fidere meritis Christi tutissimum; "It is safest to trust in the merits of Christ;" would we have affirmed that, not withstanding his wrong opinions, he had no share in his righteousness?

So this dying priest trusted in Christ's blood alone to cleanse him and save him. Do Buddhists trust in Christ's blood exclusively for salvation? No. But George Fox did, and no doubt some JWs and Mormons also trust in the blood exclusively. That doesn't mean we join those groups, but we can't deny that some of them may have a living faith in Christ.

Quest

 

[QuestionTime]

My point is and has been that God does not judge a person by referencing their church's doctrinal statement. Neither should we

Amen! There are too many Christians now-a-days who hold doctrine above simple faith in Christ, and love for the brethren. There are very many with correct doctrine in hell at this moment, and many more to join them - I am certain - because their faith was in their knowledge instead of in Christ.

Quest

 

[GF]

I've come to this discussion a bit late, it seems but its interesting.

I am a Quaker and I consider myself to be Christian.

The roots of Quakerism are most certainly in the evangelical, charismatic tradition of English protestant Christianity as it was in the tumultuous 17th century. For many Quakers today, myself included, these roots are still valid and important.

However, it would be true to say that not all Quakers adhere to these traditions though I hope they would respect them.

Quakers believed then, and believe now, that priests, ministers or clergy of any sort are unnecesary, liturgy, church music, organised worship, set prayers and so forth are distractions. Quakers rely on an inner experience of God and the movement of the Holy Spirit and thus, at least in traditional Quakerism, meetings are silent with witnessing only when the spirit moves us to speak (in theory at any rate).

Quakers traditionally have distrusted words and try to use as few as possible. Thus, there are no creeds and we distrust them. Words are inadequate to express the awsome mysteries of God. Furthermore, I cannot give my consent to something which may change tomorrow or in a hundred years. Quakers have never believed that revelation is set in stone but that it is continuing day by day minute by minute God works through us and reveals himself more and more. The original meaning of the word redemption was that a slave was ransomed and made free. Quakers believe this has already happened. Salvation through Christ Jesus is here and now, we don't have to wait for it, we simply have to accept it. "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21 George Fox was very clear on that.

Quakers do not ask of themselves that they give assent to empty words but that they live their faith and show their faith in their lives. Traditionally, and most Quakers would still accept this, this was spoken of as testimonies, witnesses to our faith by actions. The testimonies are

Simplicity: we should not misuse or abuse what we have been given including money, we should not seek to adorn ourselves or show off

Peace: we are almost invariably pacifists who believe in non-violence in all areas of life

Integrity: We should not lie nor seek to take advantage of people in our personal and commercial dealings. Truth telling is very important to Quakers. we will not swear oaths for not only is it unscriptural but implies there are two standards of truth which we live by.

Community: We should support each other and take part in the betterment of the community

Equality: Quakers have always believed in the spiritual equality of all, male, female, rich and poor, black or white, adults and children. All are free to speak with respect in our meetings.

It is probably this testimony of equality which has led to such differences with other churches. Most Quaker meetings have taken their practice of this testimony to the point where those who do not profess the traditional bible-based explicitly Christian traditions of Quakerism are welcome to speak and be members. This is challenging but entirely true to our history and witness. My personal feeling is that we are at least honest. catholics would point to their catechism but not all Catholics believe it, Anglicans repeat the Nicene Creed but not all Anglicans accept it, other denominations claim to believe the literal truth of the Bible and yet they do not silence women or stone adulterers. There is always dissent and tension. Mainstream churches sweep it under the carpet but it is still there. In Quaker meetings there is honesty and respect though there may be very great disagreement.

Are Quakers Christians? I would say it all depends on how you think a Christian is defined. Quakers prefer not to define. My personal answer would be that Quakerism is Christian and I, a Quaker, am a Christian. I don't think other Quakers or other Christians should be defining that for me and I will not define what their faith should mean for them.

 

[dmdave17]

However their beliefs differ widely, especially with the widespread belief that Jesus was just a good teacher. ... Other beliefs include, the bible only containing a part of truth. ... That All men have the light of God in them? ... Now my question is, are the quakers Christian?

It seems pretty plain to me that based on what you say about them, they are not. Whatever happened to "I am the way and the truth and the life. ..."

 

[Scotth1960]

[quote=phil36;306214]Quakers or the religious society of friends was started in the 1650's by a man called 'George Fox'. Now my question is, are the quakers Christian?

Quakers certainly had roots in Christianity. However their beliefs differ widely, especially with the widespread belief that Jesus was just a good teacher. Not all quakers go along with this, however they affiliate and still call those who belive this heresy as brothers and children of God.

Other beliefs include, the bible only containing a part of truth.

That All men have the light of God in them??

Quakers seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis of morality. (did you get that??) if this is the case what is their authority on Truth, it certainly isn't Scripture as it only contains some truth?


Many will masquerade as angels of light, but will Jesus say He knew them?
So are the quakers Christians, or just like other fringe distractments like the JWS and Mormons,and the infamous cult ' the children of God'.

Phil Quakers certainly are in error. That doesn't mean Calvinism isn't in some error.
Quakers certainly may believe a few true things. So do Calvinists. Calvinists believe God is sovereign in a Christian's salvation. That is good and true. All true Christians believe that. Where Calvinism errs is that it follows the teachings of one misguided man, Augustine of Hippo, and another misguided fellow, John Calvin, who followed after Augustine. And thus "double" predestination, while the Bible itself teaches only "single" predestination. Take care. Even in the Orthodox Church there has been some error. There is no Church, not even the Church that Christ founded, that does not have to deal with some heresy, schism, sin, or error of some kind. St. Peter sinned by denying Christ, and by preaching the necessity of circumcision, and he was withstood to the face by St. Paul, but forgiven by God and Christ for his denial of Christ, and he later repented of his insistence on the necessity of circumcision. Take care. There was the heresy of Sergianism in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century. I don't just blindly follow the Orthodox Church; the true Church has plenty of problems, and they have their petty nationalisms and ethnocentricity, and the languages problem. And they had the Old Believer versus offical Russian Orthodox Church schism in the 17th century Russia, and the Sergianist communist cooperation in the Soviet Union of the 20th century. Russian Orthodoxy is not without some error in some of its members, but not the whole Russian Orthodox Church, just part of it. In Erie Scott H.

 

[GF]

Friends,

It seems to me that we Christians would be far better employed to consider what unites us rather than what divides.

Spotting and excluding the heretic is a game that started early in the church and hardly advances the kingdom. Instead, it reduces us to self-rigtheous and arrogant citadels rather than communities. If you have boundaries to truth and belief you need someone to police those borders and I personally feel none of us is qualified to do that.

I can hardly believe that God Almighty is concerned with fine points of doctrine and human logic when he looks into a heart.

Christians need to learn to disagree well. Its ironic that we had a reformation just for the intolerant arrogance of the Catholic Church to be replaced by intolerant arrogance by a any number of Protestant churches.

I am a Quaker Christian, I know that some of what I believe seems unorthodox to those to whom orthodoxy is important. So, if some of what I believe and practice doesn't look like Christianity to you then are we not better to talk of what we agree on is Christian?

 

[FireOnTheAltar]

Quakers or the religious society of friends was started in the 1650's by a man called 'George Fox'. Now my question is, are the quakers Christian?



Other beliefs include, the bible only containing a part of truth.

That All men have the light of God in them??

Quakers seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis of morality. (did you get that??) if this is the case what is their authority on Truth, it certainly isn't Scripture as it only contains some truth?


Many will masquerade as angels of light, but will Jesus say He knew them?
So are the quakers Christians, or just like other fringe distractments like the JWS and Mormons,and the infamous cult ' the children of God'.

Phil

While I'm no expert on Quakerism, I have researched the movement in it's infancy and am currently reading George Fox's "Journal".

Quakerism, in it's original form, is every bit as Christian as any other protestant Christian movement. They believed Jesus to the Messiah and Saviour to the world. That Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that there is no other way to the Father except through Christ.

What made the original Quakers distinct from their Lutheran and Calvinistic counterparts of the era is that Quakers believed that one should be literally lead by the indwelling Holy Spirit, which Fox often refered to as "the indwelling Christ", "the light of the world" and "the light within". They believed that walking in the Spirit a person could overcome their flesh through the power of the Holy Spirit, a common belief shared by Methodists, Holiness and modern Pentecostals. Early Quakers also believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were also still relevant today, a common belief shared by various groups of Continuationists, Pentecostals and various Charismatic circles.

Unfortunately modern Quakerism hardly rssembles it's Christian predocessor. While there are still large groups of Evangelical Quakers who are indeed Christian, over the centuries most legitimate Quakers were absorbed into the Wesleyan / Methodist movement leaving many some of the more liberal Quakers to their own devices which has evolved into some strange doctrines. To sum things up, what we now call "universalism" crept slowly into the more liberal factions. While they still embraced the teaching that one should follow "the light within", they abandoned the teaching that one needs to be born again through faith in Jesus Christ and that "the light within" is supposed to be the Holy Spirit of the one and only living God. Thus modern liberal Quakerism (who in truth are not really Quakers at all) most closely resembles Buhddism.