this topic began in another thread...bubbaguy wrote:My response is to ask more personal experience questions, and not give answers.??Do you recognize the Holy Spirit in your life? Does It speak to you? How do you know right from wrong? etc. These more personal questions bring the immediacy and availability of the Holy Spirit to the fore. ??The personal God of Love is more comprehensible than the concept of a Universal Creator God, which seems distant and cold. (Yes, Ron, I believe in a Universal Creator God and evolution.) I wrote:I know you believe in a Universal Creator God and evolution, but Darwinian evolution is based on random mutation and such a God must have 'left things to get on with it'. Would such a God still deserve to me called a creator? If God did influence it in 'any' way then it is not Darwinian evolution. Pay your money, and take your choice!I notice that you frequently refer to the Holy Spirit as 'It'. I presume this because you see the Holy Spirit and the 'inner light' as synonimous terms which, of course, they are not. If they were, all talk of 'receiving the Spirit' would be nonsense, wouldn't it?a pm continued the theme:God exists outside of time and it is impossible for us to discern how or when God works on things. This applies to evolution, as well, so human logic breaks down. Both evolution by random mutation and creation by the hand of God are operating at the same time. It's impossible to discern which, given any particular phenomena. Here time based, cause and effect logic breaks down completely.Next, as Friends say, 'there is that of God in every person.' This is the inner Light and it is definately from and part of the Holy Spirit. When someone says they are recieving the Spirit it means they are tuning into and recognizing the Holy Spirit that has been with them all along. There have been many threads on 'evolution/creationism' but fewer on this question of the 'inner light'. It touches much that emerges in other threads in these days... What is the 'inner light'. Is it as the above says 'from and part of the Holy Spirit'? What would this mean? Is the Holy Spirit divisible? Does 'receiving the Spirit' mean they are turning 'into' something/someone who has been with them all along? This begins to show the fault lines; is the 'inner light' an 'it' or a 'Him'? bubbaguy often speaks as though this was the accepted teaching of the Quakers, but was it? Did George Fox distinguish between the 'light of God' and the 'seed of God'?
Quakers, old and new, and the 'inner light'
You're referring to Fox's being labelled versus that of Bubbaguy? I'm pasting this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism so that folks (such as me) who may be unfamiliar with the term. Do you believe this to be a balanced definition?I'm not familiar enough with George Fox but find myself believing with many of the "mystics" (i.e. Tozer and William Law being two of my favorites).From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Mysticism is the philosophy and practice of a direct experience of God. In the Christian context it is usually practiced through pursuit of the three disciplines of contemplative prayer (including Christian meditation), fasting (including other forms of abstinence), and alms-giving, all discussed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew Chapters 5-7). Another form of mysticism is participation in ecstatic worship. Many Christians believe that God dwells in all people (or at least in all Christians) through the Holy Spirit, and therefore all Christians can experience God directly.Biblical foundationsThe tradition of Christian Mysticism is as old as Christianity itself. At least three texts from the New Testament set up themes that recur throughout the recorded thought of the Christian mystics. The first, Galatians 2:20, says that:I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (KJV)The second important Scriptural text for Christian mysticism is 1 John 3:2:Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.The third such text, especially important for Eastern Christian mysticism, is found in II Peter 1:4:...[E]xceedingly great and precious promises [are given unto us]; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (emphasis added)Two major themes of Christian mysticism are (1) a complete identification with, or imitation of Christ, to achieve a unity of the human spirit with the spirit of God; and (2) the perfect vision, or experience, of God, in which the mystic seeks to understand God "as he is," and no more "through a glass, darkly." (1 Corinthians 13:12)Other mystical experiences are described in other passages. In 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, Paul sets forth an example of a possible out of body experience by someone who was taken up to the "third heaven", and taught unutterable mysteries:I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.Perhaps a similar experience occurred at the Transfiguration of Jesus, an incident confirmed in each of the Synoptic Gospels. Here Jesus led three of his apostles, Peter, John, and James, to pray at the top of a mountain, where he became transfigured. Jesus's face shone like the sun, and he was clad in brilliant white clothes. Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus, and talked with him, and then a bright cloud appeared overhead, and a voice from the cloud proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son: hear him."The Practice of Christian MysticismWhile such phenomena are often associated with mysticism in general, including the Christian variety, for Christians the emphasis is elsewhere; specifically, the major emphasis in Christian mysticism concerns a spiritual transformation of the human person, such that they become, as some have put it, more fully human, or fully realized human persons, "created in the Image and Likeness of God." For Christians, this full realization of human potential is realized most perfectly in Jesus and is manifested in others through their association with Him, whether conscious, as in the case of Christian mystics, or unconscious, with regard to persons who follow other traditions, such as Gandhi. The Eastern Christian tradition speaks of this transformation in terms of theosis or divinization, perhaps best summed up by an ancient aphorism usually attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria: "God became human so that humans might become God."Going back at least to Evagrius Ponticus and Pseudo-Dionysius, Christian mystics have pursued a three-fold path in their pursuit of holiness. While the different aspects of this path have different names in the different Christian traditions, they can be characterized as purgative, illuminative, and unitive, in correspondence to a understanding of human personhood that is three-fold: body, soul (or mind), and spirit. The first, the way of purification, is where aspiring Christian mystics start. This aspect focuses on discipline, particularly in terms of the human body; thus, it emphasizes prayer at certain times, either alone or with others, and in certain postures, often standing or kneeling. It also emphasizes the other disciplines of fasting and alms-giving, the latter including those activities called "the works of mercy," both spiritual and corporal, such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.This phase, which forms the basis of Christian mysticism in general, is designed, in the words of St. Paul, to "put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 8:13). The "deeds of the flesh" here includes not only external behavior, but also those habits, attitudes, compulsions, addictions, etc. (sometimes called passions) which oppose themselves to living as a Christian is called to live, not only exteriorly, but interiorly as well. Because of its physical, disciplinary aspect, this phase, as well as the entire Christian mystical path, is often referred to as "ascetic," a word which is derived from a Greek word referring to athletic training. Because of this, in ancient Christian literature, prominent mystics are often called "spiritual athletes," an image which is also used several times in the New Testament to describe the Christian life. What is sought here is salvation in the original sense of the word, referring not so much to one's eternal fate, but to one's healing, spiritually, mentally and emotionally, and physically.The second phase, called the path of illumination, has to do with the activity of the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind, giving insights into the truths, not only explicit in Scripture and the rest of the Christian Tradition, but also those implicit in nature, not in the scientific sense, but rather in terms of an illumination of the "depth" aspects of natural happenings, such that the working of God is perceived in all that one experiences.The third phase, usually called contemplation in the Western tradition, has to do with the experience of oneself as in some way united with God. This experience of union varies and is difficult to describe. However, it is first and foremost always associated with Divine love, the underlying theme being that God is known or experienced, as much by the heart as by the intellect since, in the words of the book 1 John 4:16: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God and God in him."Another aspect of Christian mysticism had to do with its communal nature. Even for hermits, the Christian life is always lived in communion with the Church, the community of believers. Thus, participation in corporate worship, especially the Eucharist, is an essential part of Christian mysticism. Connected with this is the practice of having a spiritual director, confessor, or "soul friend" with which to discuss one's spiritual progress. This person, who may be clerical or lay, acts as a spiritual mentor.
No, my post was not relating to mysticism. Personally, I am deeply suspicious of mysticism. I hope he comes to the party, but bubbaguy looks to his sense of 'inner light' as the ultimate authority in spiritual truth. He would expect that to be matched by the same 'witness' in his group of Friends, but he would certainly put his 'inner light' ahead of the scripture revelation. Of course, there is a similarity in that some (but not all) mystics would do the same. Their final authority is the subjective witness of their 'inner light' rather than the objective witness of the scriptures.
This is a very interesting conversational topic indeed. As a side note but ties in there was a revival movement in canada called the "Great Awakening" in Nova Scotia that happened after the awakening in the states and paticularly new england died down. In this movement there was a key figure Henry Alline. He was sort of a mystic and in many ways reminds me of George Fox. Well the churches that experienced this revival were known as "New Light" churches. They were mostly comprimised of baptist churches and most would be known as Free will baptist after the movement. Alot of the focus was on the experience of the word and application of it before interpretation and grounding in the historical sense. But definetly I would say that the minstries of Henry Alline and George Fox were needed. But it does beg the question can people who seem to veer off doctrine slightly especially in ephasis or termnilogy be considered right overall?From my readings of George Fox he saw the emphasis of the parallels of light and darkness in the scripture that God gives as allegories to true spiritual meaning. Alline's statements would usually be let us get to the spiritual interpretation of this text thinking the intial viewing of it as not as spiritual. In this way he was very mystical. And also George Fox I believe followed in this way of thinking. I know there are some works against the "inner light" doctrine and thoughts that George Fox uses. There is a book penned by George Fox called "The Great Mystery" in it there is given an rebutal to every tract written against quakers and the beliefs of their sect. I have it in my hand and it is a lofty volume. The funny thing is he replies to every known tract written by puritans and others against him and the quakers and then if that were not enough he goes and attacks John Owen (the king of puritans) who was definetly an monumental and historical figure, but George Fox seeing no partiality as does God wrote some apologies against his doctrines and teachings.It is interesting to note that pratically every answer George Fox gives is: "The scripture says..."Here is a link to some of the book:http://www.qis.net/~daruma/GreatMystery3.html
This is out of the 1st of 3 of the doctrinal books of the quakers:"...for the light is but one, which is Christ, who enlighteneth everyone, and all are enlightened with one light; every one taking heed to that light which Christ hath enlightened you withal, it leads you out of sects, out of forms, out of the beatuty of the world, to love in life and power: and wiating in the light which Christ hath enlightened you withal, you come to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and servants to the truth..."Possibly the "light" is talked of a term to represent Christ (God) and also the Spirit (Holy Spirit) that He imparts to believers. And truly the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, that has come into the world to reprove and convict of unrighteousness and also teach men into all truth. It is a stumbling block to some when He speaks in these ways but as he says "it" leads you... I think George Fox meant in all good ways that the Holy Spirit leads us to be Holy in manner and thought also.. It will be interesting to look deeper into this. I am sure Ron is working away at something here.
Thanks GregI have bookmarked the 'Great Mystery' and will look forward to looking at it in more detail. At this stage I am not challenging Fox but rather those who have interpreted him. 'The scripture says' is not only a phrase with Fox. His searching before conversion gave him and almost encyclopaedic grasp of the scripture. It would be almost impossible for someone like Fox to go contrary to the scripture accidentally. This makes 'Fox's' "inner light" a much safer luminary than "inner light" in others. Indeed, what I hope we can do here is find out just what the "inner light" is and to see if it differs from the conscience and from an intervening witness of the Spirit to our spirit.Fox is one of my all time heroes. In the little history of the UK I gave you, Fox is the missing ingredient. My own theory is that England's revival did not occur at the Reformation but a century later under the ministry of George Fox.
When you guys talk about "inter light " are you talking about the enlightening of the scripture to ones understanding?
When you guys talk about "inter light " are you talking about the enlightening of the scripture to ones understanding?I can only hope so Dohzman.And I believe that will be the emphasis here. There was a good note mentioned here;'The scripture says' is not only a phrase with Fox. His searching before conversion gave him and almost encyclopaedic grasp of the scripture. It would be almost impossible for someone like Fox to go contrary to the scripture accidentally. This makes 'Fox's' "inner light" a much safer luminary than "inner light"Brings to mind;Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.Which words?This will come around to the question of inerrancy again and find it somewhat puzzling that this can be such an issue as even measuring what our 'inner light' or the impulses that affect us against what has been written for our understanding. The quirkiness of our beings, being so fickle one moment, elated the next, emotions and worship, times of deep searching, some of the navel variety, some of the Holy Spirit. Imagination for good and bad, but still imagination so many factors. Things observed, things felt... things wondered, this being one that is a wonder in itself, that it seems to have fled with a want of always having to have an explanation for everything.Mystic and mysterious I don't think have to be coined together. What is considered trustworthy amongst those that are given trust? Is it not primarily their character? If we have an 'experience' in whatever form or shape it comes in that we think is from this 'inner light' or more accurately the Holy Spirit, would He ever act out of character? We might be able to say that about ourselves, but...And how are to come to know what that character is? If we were left to each of our own insights and inflections only...Isn't this what the canon of scripture was brought round to as it was culminated? That which was out of character being rejected? Just as 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.What all preceded this?1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.(Is this not similar to Joh 5:39; Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. ?)Coming full circle;1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. It just seems to be very much a hand in glove issue. Not approaching scripture as a 'law book' as a lawyer might study it for knowledge sake alone, but as a lawyer in practice would reference it and refer to it, appeal to it as the final standard. What we tend to have a lot of now is to change the 'law' as it were to suit our tastes or wishes instead of subjecting everything to it.It's a poor analogy on many levels, because we love the object of our affections, just seems if we did more so we might listen to what He said and appeal to that first and foremost. 1Jo 2:24 What you have heard from the beginning must abide in you. If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you will also abide in the Son and in the Father. 1Jo 2:25 The message that he himself declared to us is eternal life. 1Jo 2:26 I have written to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 1Jo 2:27 The anointing you received from him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. Instead, because his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not a lie, abide in him, as he taught you to do. Think this could be a key verse here just as well as it is often used to buttress an idea that "you do not need anyone to teach you" misses everything that comes before it. Again, what things? "What you have heard from the beginning must abide in you.'1Jo 2:4 The person who says, "I have come to know him," but does not continually keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 1Jo 2:5 But whoever continually keeps his word is the kind of person in whom God's love has truly been perfected. This is how we can be sure that we are in union with him: 1Jo 2:6 The one who says that he abides in him must live the same way he himself lived.And the only account we have is that which is written. The final arbitrator is the Lord and the arbitration is His word, the Word made flesh, one and the same.
No, and this is the real dilema that I am trying to address here. The Quakers believed that... “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:6-9, KJVS)..and interpret that to mean there was 'a light that illuminates every man' and that we are born with it. They went further and said 'this light is within every man' and because they identified that 'light' with Christ they said that there was that which was 'of Christ' in every man. Modern Quakers use a similar language but have made that 'inner light' quite independent of any revelation in scripture. On a personal level there is also a tendency to receive 'revelation' from this 'inner light' and to regard it with the same confidence as any scriptural revelation. Bubbaguys 'inner light revelation' has taught him that the 'original sin' of early man was to become a carnivore. This necessitated a change in human physiology to enable humans to catch animals. Now for many who read these pages the details will seem bizarre but the principle at stake is an important one. It is important because it is much the same as is professed by many pentecostal/charismatic believers who add 'special revelations' to the scripture and so become 'wiser than what is written'. (btw most non-charistmatics would regard me as a charismatic)On SI here this has included revelations about psychological wounds which need to emerge slowly over years and layers of wounds which hide behind each other and so distort our understanding and experience. It has also produced 'revelations' about relating to pre-human histories of angels. In sermons is includes some of the special revelations of David Wilkerson relating to hell. (I have huge respect for David Wilkerson, but feel this aspect of his ministry is disturbing and unhelpful.) So this thread was not started as a 'witch-hunt' against the views of Bubbaguy but as an attempt to get a grip on a current understanding and to measure its implications. The question I want to ask is 'is that light which illumines every man' a witness to man's conscience? The passage from John 1 is really all about God's witnesses to us and the Jew's response to the ultimate witness. Is it a witness 'to us' or 'within us'? Does it differ from conscience? No-one, as far as I know, would suggest that the conscience 'adds' revelation; most would say it bears witness to revelation.With some Quakers there is a tendency to equate 'inner light' with another of Fox's phrases... 'the seed of God'. From time to time Fox's diary describes individuals as 'having a seed of God' within them. As far as my reading goes, I have never seen Fox use this as a synonym for 'the inner light'. The 'seed of God' was not in all, otherwise Fox would not have described 'some' as having it. It is almost the equivalent to 'a work of grace has begun in him'.I realize from your comments that this language may be strange to some. In one sense this is a bit a cycle. I cannot start with a definition because this is what the whole thread is aimed at. How are we to define 'light which illumines every man'? and what status does 'extra-biblical' revelation have in the systematizing of Christian truth?Dohzman wrote:When you guys talk about "inter light " are you talking about the enlightening of the scripture to ones understanding?Mike repliedI can only hope so Dohzman.And I believe that will be the emphasis here. cont.
How are we to define 'light which illumines every man'? and what status does 'extra-biblical' revelation have in the systematizing of Christian truth?I consider this question important, not just because of the concept of Inner Light, but to discuss all troubling forms of extra-biblical revelation in the Church, either through reason or mysticism. It is my growing conclusion that somewhere along the rationalist line we have separated Jesus’ words from the Spirit. Notice how interchangeable "words" and "spirit" are to Jesus. “"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." So when Jesus said of His words “They are spirit”, this is quite a different thing then saying” My words are spiritual.” There a relationship between words and spirit that we tend to dismiss. What is this relationship between God’s words and God’s spirit? I’m not sure if I can articulate it, but I am sure that the two are more then connected…they are inseparable. Those outside the Church presume to hear the Word without the Spirit, while too many within the Church presume to hear the Spirit without the Word. This is why I have come to believe that those who would hear God should not chase after an inner voice, but the "voice" of Scripture. Only then does the spirit quickeneth.In following Ron’s counsel to look for histories and not definitions of biblical words…I notice that Paul penned this irreducible historical biography of the Holy Spirit:“The Spirit giveth life.”So I think perhaps a better term would be "Inner Life." The Spirit is not here to inform us, but to conform us to the words of Jesus, testifying of the words that Jesus has spoken. “Why do ye not understand my speech? [Even] because ye cannot hear my word?” The Spirit’s revelation to the Church is never more or less then the revealed word of God recorded in scripture. As we ingest and live these words, the Spirit giveth life. I believe this was the Inner Light George Fox spoke of. His Inner Light freed him from the captivity from conflicting denominational traditions…to be more of a captive to scripture. This I believe is the ministry of the Holy Spirit…to make us more captive to the word of God. In utter contrast, many today use the Inner Light to bypass scripture. This is the essential difference between George Fox and many Quakers, Charismatics, and even some freelance prophets today. Fox was quite aware that it was the person of the Holy Spirit that gives life. Fox would not have called the Spirit “it” “And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” (Although the “Inner Light” as an "it" could very well be an unfortunate synonym for “the mind of Christ.”) Fox describes the Inner Light in his journal. “But as I had forsaken the priests, so I left the separate preachers also, and those esteemed the most experienced people; for I saw there was none among them all that could speak to my condition. And when all my hopes in them and in all men were gone, so that I had nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do, then, oh, then, I heard a voice which said, "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition"; and when I heard it my heart did leap for joy. Then the Lord let me see why there was none upon the earth that could speak to my condition, namely, that I might give Him all the glory; for all are concluded under sin, and shut up in unbelief as I had been, that Jesus Christ might have the pre-eminence who enlightens, and gives grace, and faith, and power.”I believe Fox would not at all approve of the extra biblical revelation that is so common today. Today, too many want to find revelation beyond scripture…some through higher criticism of the text, and other through mysticism that bypasses the text. This need for extra-biblical mysticism in the Church indicates a belief that scriptures no longer provides sufficient revelation to live as Christians. I think we imagine a dialectic where Spirit and the Text are at odds with each other and we are left to fill in the blanks. Somehow scripture and spirit are not the false dichotomy we rationalize them to be. “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” To the degree that I ingest the bible’s pages is the degree that I will have an inner light. To the degree I live according to the revelation contained in the pages is the degree that I am walking in that light. To the degree I make know the message of the pages, is the degree I bring light into this world. MC
I believe Fox would not at all approve of the extra biblical revelation that is so common today. Today, too many want to find revelation beyond scripture…some through higher criticism of the text, and other through mysticism that bypasses the text. MC some great comments. Yes I do agree that George Fox would not agree fully with alot of what is happening. In this day there were other dissenter groups such as the "shakers" who would not want to have any religious form and you could compare that to some very off the wall charismatic groups and independent churches (there is nothing new under the sun). As I said in one of my posts that George Fox would always use scripture, it was rightly said: "that if the bible were lost in england it would be found in George Fox's mouth."But definetly this does come down to the point that Ron is trying to draw that it is not just using the scripture but the theology and belief of that scripture is very important. Ron's words are heavy but addressing a subject like this in this way requires it to be heavy.(btw most non-charistmatics would regard me as a charismatic)Most people consider SI charismatic :-P go figure. It is important because it is much the same as is professed by many pentecostal/charismatic believers who add 'special revelations' to the scripture and so become 'wiser than what is written'. Yes. This is alot of the crux of the matter and as Ron is trying to paint the picture for us that the excesses in the charismatic movement is not something new but this type of thing has been going on for awhile. And that some of the discussions and talks even yes possibly the illustration in the sermon by wilkerson enters into this category. I will have to dig up the quotes Ron but I know that George Fox had a signifigant belief in that the Holy Ghost could reveal to Him all truth and arguable (possibly I think as Fox said) truth that goes beyond the black and white writings and pages of the bible. And he does back it up with many proofs such as "we know in part.." and many other scriptures. Hence I need to dig up those quotes. But He is a was a firm believer in the truth of the scriptures and their authority (this was a point that the puritans tryed to get at him with).The question I want to ask is 'is that light which illumines every man' a witness to man's conscience? The passage from John 1 is really all about God's witnesses to us and the Jew's response to the ultimate witness. Is it a witness 'to us' or 'within us'? Does it differ from conscience? I hope people will delve into this question and continue with this discussion. I am personally captivated where it progresses and goes. Please no major tangents people :-P
..and interpret that to mean there was 'a light that illuminates every man' and that we are born with it.I see now, misunderstood where this was going. But does this not still reflect back on; 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Which is impossible to recieve without the change of ownership.I realize from your comments that this language may be strange to some. In one sense this is a bit a cycle. I cannot start with a definition because this is what the whole thread is aimed at. How are we to define 'light which illumines every man'? and what status does 'extra-biblical' revelation have in the systematizing of Christian truth?Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Hope I am not mudding things here, but isn't the 'remnant' of our original creation in effect our conscience? This seems to be what Earnest O'Neill kept appealing to, not in a sense of something lying dormant, a 'seed' that only needs to be illuminated, but our original construction, constitution, which has been handed over due to sin.Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.The Light is Christ, the foreign invader. Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Mat 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 1Pe 1:23 Being born again,not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible , by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.Likely jumping ahead to the extra-biblical and where MC did a much better job of expressing.
Austin-Sparks in his book, The School of Christ touches on this topic in Chapter 5 entitled The Light of Life.One has to read the whole chapter to get a grasp of what he's saying but he made things simple when he explained:Looking backward at that tabernacle or that temple of old where the Shekinah glory was found, we mark that that light, that glory which linked heaven and earth like a ladder, had its expression in the Most Holy Place. You know that in the Holy of Holies, everything was curtained around and over, excluding every bit of natural light, so that the place, entered into apart from the Shekinah, would have been black darkness, without light at all; but entered into while the glory rested upon it, it was all light, it was all Divine light, heavenly light, the light of God. And that Most Holy Place sets forth the inner life of the Lord Jesus, His spirit where God is found, the light from heaven, the light of what God is in Him. His spirit is the Most Holy Place, in the holy House of God, and it was there, in that Most Holy Place where the light of the glory was, that God said He would commune with His people through their representative. "I will commune with you above the mercy seat between the cherubim" (Exo 25:22). The place of communion—"I will commune". What a lovely word—"commune". There is nothing hard, nothing terrible, nothing fearful about that. "I will commune with you." It is the place where God speaks; in the communion God speaks, makes Himself known. It is the place of speaking. It is called the place of the oracle, the place of the speaking; and that is the Propitiatory, the Mercy Seat, and that is all the Lord Jesus. He, we are told, has been set forth by God to be a propitiatory (Rom 3:25), and in Him God communes with His people. In Him God speaks to and with His people. But the underlining must be of those words "in Him", for there is no communion with God, no communion of God, no speaking to be heard, no meeting at all, save in Christ. That would be a place of death and destruction for the natural man; hence the terrible warnings given about coming into that place without the right equipment, that symbolic equipment which spoke of the natural man having been altogether covered and another heavenly Man having enfolded him as with heavenly robes, the robes of righteousness. Only so dare he enter into that place: otherwise it was "lest he die . . ." The natural man has no access into the inner chamber of life.That means that the natural man cannot come into the light, nor can he come into God's great purpose and be found in that House full of His glory, that vessel through which He is going to manifest that glory to His universe. The natural man cannot come in there: and when we speak about the natural man, we are not just referring to the unsaved man, that is, the man who has never come to the Lord Jesus. We are speaking about the man whom God has reckoned as being put aside altogether. This is stating a tremendous fact. Every bit of real light which is in the direction of that ultimate effulgence, the revealing of the glory of God in us and through us, every bit of it is in Christ Jesus, and can only be had in Him on the basis of the natural man having been altogether put outside, put away, and a new man having been brought into being with a new set of spiritual faculties: so that Nicodemus, the best product of the religious school of his day and of his world, is told, "Except one be born anew (or from above), he cannot see . . ." He cannot see. Well, it resolves itself into this, that to know even the first letters of the Divine alphabet we must be in Christ, and every bit that follows is a matter of learning Christ, knowing what it means to be in Christ.
MCI am much of your mind on these things, although (perversely) I do want to leave room for the Spirit to reveal truth direct to my heart. However, when this happens I believe I have a duty to "search the scriptures to see whether these things be so." If we use the scripture just as a manual we risk what Tozer called 'logical deductions drawn from proof texts'. It becomes a sterile fact-book, even though the facts are true facts. It is just knowledge and knowledge 'puffeth up'. Unless a man learns to depend upon the Spirit in his understanding of the scripture he will almost inevitably degenerate into an 'evangelical'. (joking, but wanting to stress that doctrinal orthodoxy is by no means the same as being 'alive'.)There are some who have used the idea that the Word was the domain of the Brethren and the Spirit the domain of the Pentecostals and that all we need to do is bring the two back together to guarantee revival. I cannot accept this; I don't think it does justice to either the Brethren or the Pentecostals, both of which have had men of Word and Spirit in their ranks. The phrase used is sometimes 'the Spirit must be checked by reference to the Scripture'; I think this expresses it wrongly. The Spirit will always be in accord with the Scripture, always. My job will always be to know for certain that what I am hearing is genuinely the Spirit and not my own bright ideas, or worse the ideas of another spirit. I still think that verse in Isaiah gets close to the matter, although it can be quoted with a deadly condemnation; “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Is. 8:20, KJVS) The Spirit will always speak 'according to this word', always. If what I am hearing is not 'according to this word' I am not hearing or am mis-hearing the Holy Spirit.That opens up the whole question of 'interpretation' which is a different but related topic.There is an interesting account of Fox with a native American from his journal:The Governor, with his wife, received us lovingly; but a doctor there would needs dispute with us. And truly his opposing us was of good service, giving occasion for the opening of many things to the people concerning the Light and Spirit of God, which he denied to be in everyone; and affirmed that it was not in the Indians.Whereupon I called an Indian to us, and asked him whether when he lied, or did wrong to any one, there was not something in him that reproved him for it. He said there was such a thing in him, that did so reprove him; and he was ashamed when he had done wrong, or spoken wrong.So we shamed the doctor before the Governor and the people; insomuch that the poor man ran out so far that at length he would not own the Scriptures. Is this 'all' that Fox meant by 'the light within'? How would this differ from conscience? The scripture makes very plain that the conscience is not a static conviction but a witness 'within' which is capable of being 'defiled' 'seared' and many other states.Oswald Chambers says"Neither natural love nor Divine love will remain unless it is cultivated. Love is spontaneous, but it has to be maintained by discipline.Chambers, Oswald, My Utmost for His Highest, May 11th (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1927. and, this is one of my all time favourite Chambers quotations: The Christian life is stamped by “moral spontaneous originality,” consequently the disciple is open to the same charge that Jesus Christ was, viz., that of inconsistency. But Jesus Christ was always consistent to God, and the Christian must be consistent to the life of the Son of God in him, not consistent to hard and fast creeds. Men pour themselves into creeds, and God has to blast them out of their prejudices before they can become devoted to Jesus Christ.Chambers, Oswald, My Utmost for His Highest, July 2nd. (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1927. This is walking in the Spirit, and I man who walks like this will not 'keep' but will 'fulfill righteous requirement of the law'. This does not seem to be what Fox is referring to, unless Fox believed that the unregenerate 'Indian' could walk in the Spirit; I'm sure he didn't.I'll pause here and prepare some Robert Barclay quotes for the next posting.
Word and the Spirit. I like Wersbies(sp?) book on knowing the voice of God, he uses the 3 lighthouse illustration to make a point. We recieve a quickening from the Word of God or have the inward witness, Then we hear the same thing through other channel,ie...radio---pulpit ---etc... and third we search it out in the bible to test it according to scripture. Anyway he put forth the proposition that until all 3 light houses lined up we should keep the matter in prayer. That works for me.Question on interlight and Quakers, Are they universalists in thier approach to salvation?
Question on interlight and Quakers, Are they universalists in thier approach to salvation?Some are. bubbaguy has posted to the effect that we keep reincarnating until we are fit for heaven, but I think that is a fairly unique view.
Ron, quote "bubbaguy has posted to the effect that we keep reincarnating until we are fit for heaven, but I think that is a fairly unique view."This needs clarification. I have read enough accounts of reincarnation that have no reasonable other explanation, that I have become convinced that reincarnation happens, at least to some people. See the book Old Souls by journalist Tom Schoder. He starts out completely skeptical and ends up accepting reincarnation because of the mountain of evidence. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684851938/002-8909981-6831224?v=glanceYou can read the introduction on this page.But as for the purpose and how it fits into the Christian belief system and salvation, I have lots of questions. As a young child I had visions of living in India as a meditative/religious person. At that age, however, I had no idea or understanding of meditation and religion. Why would a child without understanding have visions of something completely foreign to him? I came to understand this better after reading the Old Souls book.I know this is a hard thing for SIers to accept. I have a hard time accepting it. But if you doubt gravity, it doesn't make it go away.BubPS. I am digressing here from the subject and don't want to change the subject from what Ron originally posted. (I'm all ears on the subject of the Light Within.) So, if you have comments on this post please just PM me. Thanks.
This is the introduction to Robert Barclays explanations of Quaker Theology. Barclay was a friend and travelling companion of George Fox and enjoyed Fox's confidence. He is regarded with suspicion by bubbaguys brand of Quakerism, but this book has always been regarded as the Systematic Theology of the early Quakers. Its style is very 'dense' and you will need to read it slowly but it is very logical in its progress:Seeing no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son revealeth him; 2 and seeing the revelation of the Son is in and by the Spirit; therefore the testimony of the Spirit is that alone by which the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be only revealed; who as, by the moving of his own Spirit, he converted the chaos of this world into that wonderful order wherein it was in the beginning, and created man a living soul, to rule and govern it, so by the revelation of the same Spirit he hath manifested himself all along unto the sons of men, both patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; which revelations of God by the Spirit, whether by outward voices, and appearances, dreams, or inward objective manifestations in the heart, were of old the formal object of their faith, and remain yet so to be; since the object of the saints' faith is the same in all ages, though set forth under divers administrations. Moreover, these divine inward revelations, which we make absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do nor can ever contradict the outward testimony, of the scriptures, or right and sound reason. Yet from hence it will not follow, that these divine revelations are to be subjected to the examination, either of the outward testimony of the scriptures, or of the natural reason of man, as to a more noble or certain rule or touchstone: for this divine revelation, and inward illumination, is that which is evident and clear of itself, forcing, by its own evidence and clearness, the well-disposed understanding to assent, irresistibly moving the same thereunto; even as the common principles of natural truths move and incline the mind to a natural assent: as, that the whole is greater than its part; that two contradictory sayings cannot be both true, nor both false; which is also manifest, according to our adversaries' principle, who (supposing the possibility of inward divine revelations) will nevertheless confess with us, that neither scripture nor sound reason will contradict it: and yet it will not follow, according to them, that the scripture, or sound reason, should be subjected to the examination of the divine revelations in the heart. You will see how carefully Barclay tries to steer around things. He is strong in his assertions on the 'inner light' but is equally strong in his statements that these 'revelations...neither do nor can ever contradict the outward testimony, of the scriptures, or right and sound reason.' Please read this and decide whether you think he is on the right track.What do you think of this statement above...even as the common principles of natural truths move and incline the mind to a natural assent: as, that the whole is greater than its part; that two contradictory sayings cannot be both true, nor both false; Gravity, btw, is susceptible to scientific testing and proof by experiment. Reincarnation could never be so tested.
according to our adversaries' principle, who (supposing the possibility of inward divine revelations) will nevertheless confess with us, that neither scripture nor sound reason will contradict it: and yet it will not follow, according to them, that the scripture, or sound reason, should be subjected to the examination of the divine revelations in the heart.That's interesting that he would make that statement. I'll need to re-read the whole again several more times to get it down in this brain of mine. :-(
Philo,If we use the scripture just as a manual we risk what Tozer called 'logical deductions drawn from proof texts'. It becomes a sterile fact-bookI hope I didn't appear to be saying that the bible as a manual replaces the Spirit. Actually I though your post was saying more clearly what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that scripture and spirit involve each other and are completely in agreement with each other. That is not to say that the spirit cannot speak into your heart without scripture…but such thinking is risky for me. The Spirit never disagrees with scripture but our hearts do! If Paul had not been a scholar of scripture, but an empty headed student, could the Holy Spirit have quickened in him the revelation of Christ’s gospel? After all, Paul’s’ presentation of the gospel was not based solely on an internal vision…but on a regenerated understanding of Old Testament promises. I'm not emphasizing the words apart from the spirit, as much as I want to highlight the spirit of the words. Tommy Tenney (God Chasers) comes to mind as an example of someone who seems to disregard the spiritual aspect within the words of scripture. This popular evangelist calls the New Testament “dusty old love letters” and says that instead of the Word of God, we need to hear from the “God of the Word”. From this separation he then proceeds to testify how the spirit of power needs no words to convert people, or to revive the church. All that is needed is supernatural power.I feel that our current Christian fascination with supernatural power (which is quite different from spiritual power) is really a misunderstanding of the "spirit of truth" Christians with “words of knowledge” and “prophecies” have their moments…but in the long run I have seen many “spirit-led” supernatural Christians spin out of control, while spirit-led bible believers are quietly plugging along in their devotion. Their “power” is not in gifts but in character, which is lacking in today’s approach to the Holy Spirit. In fact, one of the critiques I have about “revivalism” it that it can portray Christians at one church reading their scriptures as somehow dead, while in another church a mighty wind will blow in and make powerhouses out of all the undisciplined people who barely read their bibles. I believe such an image is based on a belief that the Spirit can operate void of scripture…leading to false revivals.Well, these are just some loose personal thoughts. I don’t think ink on a paper page is “spirit” but I do think the distinction between God’s words and spirit is more blurred then the complete isolation we tend to hold them in. There is a hymn that captures this blurred distinction between words and spirit much better then my ramblings.Break Thou the Bread of Life.Break thou the bread of life, dear Lord to me,As thou didst break the loaves beside the sea;Throughout the sacred page I seek thee, Lord,My spirit pants for thee, O Living Word.Thou art the bread of life, O Lord, to me,Thy holy Word the truth that saveth me;Give me to eat and live with thee above;Teach me to love the truth, for thou art love.MC
Moreover, these divine inward revelations, which we make absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do nor can ever contradict the outward testimony, of the scriptures, or right and sound reason.I can agree with much of what Barclay is saying except I think it worth noting that while "sound reason" is a source of wisdom, it is not on par with scripture. To measure all "inner testimonies" with the metric of scripture's "outer testimony" is sound policy.even as the common principles of natural truths move and incline the mind to a natural assent: as, that the whole is greater than its part; that two contradictory sayings cannot be both true, nor both false; This is touches on what I tried to describe earlier; that some mistakenly act as if the Spirit and the Scriptures are engaged in a dialectic to guide us. Barclay says that two contradictory sayings cannot both be true...but Christians do not always think like this. As an example...when I was younger a pastor "prophesied" over me that I was going to be involved in a large business enterprise that would bring me great wealth in order to "bless" other people. Because it was a public prophecy, that year many people came to me privately to "confirm" this word. I remember being just mature enough in my faith to be confused...afterall didn't Paul warn Timothy about the enticement of money and how some think Godliness is a way to wealth? Here is the juncture where "spirit-led" Christians enter into that dialectic process I mentioned..."God promises you wealth" is the thesis and "God cautions you about wanting wealth" is the antihesis. So, in our reasoning we might arrive at a new revised thesis to resolve the tension...something like "God is telling you to expect wealth, while at the same time not desiring it." A healthier process would be to avoid the dialectic and follow scripture. The testimony of the "spirit" (sic) via my pastor...(as well as the "sound reason" that money does some neat things in the church,) should have been completely disregarded rather then being used to "inform" my understanding of Paul's advise to Timothy. The testimony of scripture is absolute even if I am void of inner light on a particular matter.I recognize what Oswald Chambers was talking about regarding blind adherance to creed, instead of "spontaneous" adherance to Christ. I think he wasn't talking about contradicting scripture where it is explicit...only being willing to act outside of mere tradition or even to be spirit-led in areas where scripure might seem silent or uninformative. Chambers, I think, was concerned about obedience, otherwise his point could be license for all sorts of personal ethics. For example, consider the homosexual argument with the bible that it does not hold to a consistent "sexual ethic". In fact, the point they make has merit...Solomon could apparently do things that I am not permitted to do! Yet there is one consistent "ethic" such reasoning overlooks and that is the consistency of obedience. Throughout the bible obedience is the one "ethic" that the children of God are judge by...even though the ethics of war, money, and sex seem to change during the history of scripture. So for me...I resolve that the New Testament is written to me, a Christian, and therefore, holds moral and spiritual preeminence where it is explicit over the Old testament, while both testaments uphold that the chief goal of a child of God is obedience.I suppose I am saying that I am reluctant to the idea that the Holy Spirt, or any Inner light "informs" the Christian in the literal sense. Testifying of the word, teaching the word, reminding of the word certainly, but never introducing a new word. At the risk of being too poetic... scripture informs, reason should conform, and I guess the Spirit can transform...the scriptures into character, a Living Word within. :-) MC
Break thou the bread of life, dear Lord to me,As thou didst break the loaves beside the sea;Throughout the sacred page I seek thee, Lord,My spirit pants for thee, O Living Word.Thou art the bread of life, O Lord, to me,Thy holy Word the truth that saveth me;Give me to eat and live with thee above;Teach me to love the truth, for thou art love.Hi Mike Cthis hymn has been doctored! The original version saysBeyond the sacred page I seek thee Lord,My spirit pants for thee, O living word :-) But the writer it not looking for 'revelation' beyond the sacred page but acknowledging that his heart's desire is for that personal encounter with the Christ of the scriptures. The scriptures are a sign post“And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” (John 5:38-40, KJVS)I think this was the real burden of much that Fox was saying. A doctrinal rectitude is not Christianity. Christianity is not believing certain things or going through certain evangelical process, but a 'coming to Christ'. I don't mean by that 'going forward at a meeting'. I think Fox has much to say to our doctrinal evangelicalism but I think he was right on the edge of a wrong 'ultimate authority'. It was his own saturation in the scriptures that safeguarded him and people like Barclay. But if you move from his personal context to the 21st century it becomes much more dangerous. It is significant to me that for all that Fox and Barclay wrote they never, personally, went into the excesses that many did then, and have done since. Why?I'm not emphasizing the words apart from the spirit, as much as I want to highlight the spirit of the words. I know you weren't. I was not disagreeing but just adding my comments.
even as the common principles of natural truths move and incline the mind to a natural assent: as, that the whole is greater than its part; that two contradictory sayings cannot be both true, nor both false;MC, I somehow expected you to spot the flaw in this logic. Two contradictory things can be false. Today is Thursday. If I say it is Wednesday and you say it is Friday, we can be both contradictory and WRONG.
A doctrinal rectitude is not Christianity. Christianity is not believing certain things or going through certain evangelical process, but a 'coming to Christ'.Amen Ron.this hymn has been doctored! The original version saysBeyond the sacred page I seek thee Lord,My spirit pants for thee, O living wordI've been had! Wouldn't you know it...not even hymns are tamper proof! :knockedout: I somehow expected you to spot the flaw in this logic. Two contradictory things can be false.I was so binary in my focus that I didn't notice that two opposing ideas could be equally wrong. In fact a million conflicting falsehoods are all equally wrong! I think Fox has much to say to our doctrinal evangelicalism but I think he was right on the edge of a wrong 'ultimate authority'. It was his own saturation in the scriptures that safeguarded him and people like Barclay. But if you move from his personal context to the 21st century it becomes much more dangerous. It is significant to me that for all that Fox and Barclay wrote they never, personally, went into the excesses that many did then, and have done since. Why? Do you think there is merit in Francis Shaefer’s idea that as the "enlightenment" emerged, a separation between faith and reason began to be expressed? I have wondered if Fox was just beginning to touch the edges of a fault line that finally broke open with Kierkegaard. I think in many ways the 20th century was not only an age of industry and science, but also an age of mysticism. This divergent trend seems to only be getting strgoner in the 21st century. The chasm is visible even in Christianity. Perhaps the forms of liberal Christianity on one side, and Charismaticism on the other are all divergent excesses along this fault line...in some pattern that I can't exactly quite see. I wonder if many liberal Quakers are essentially practicing excesses on both sides of this fault line; preserving the tradition of "inner light", but in the vacuum of modern higher criticism.Have you ever noticed that some of the most "scientific" minded people, tend to have the most irrational self-styled spiritual beliefs? I have an acquaintance, who will constantly mock my faith, citing evolution theory, genetics, astronomy, and world religions as rational proof against the reality of Christianity...yet this same fellow has arrived at a belief that his thoughts and words are controlling his material reality on some matter/energy/spirit quantum physics level. He’ll talk about this like it’s another gospel. He thinks he's an Indigo Child. I love to point out that those Charismatic televangelists, whom he loves to laugh at, believe essentially the same thing!MC
...that two contradictory sayings cannot be both true,I would like to challenge this. :-)Two sisters appear on a talkshow who were born of the same mother and of the same father on the same day within minutes of each other. They are near identical in every way. 1) Audience member one says "they are not twins."2) Audience member two says "they are twins." This is a contradiction, but both are right. ;-)How can this be?
Egads MC,Have you ever noticed that some of the most "scientific" minded people, tend to have the most irrational self-styled spiritual beliefs?I love to point out that those Charismatic televangelists, whom he loves to laugh at, believe essentially the same thing!Perusing through all that, there was a point mentioned about how eventually the 'frequency' would become such that it would stop the skeptics from coming to his site, wish I could send him an email to tell him it's already working... :-?
Robert, I assume the audience members are talking about the same people?And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of two offspring born at the same birth"?If so then they cannot both be right.
Hi Nasher,I assume the audience members are talking about the same people?Yes. And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of two offspring born at the same birth"? Yes.If so then they cannot both be right.Here is a clue:They are twins, but they are not twins
Here is a clue:They are twins, but they are not twinsPlease tell me how so
OK. The context of the issue is that I challenged this statement:...that two contradictory sayings cannot be both trueI used this analogy:Two sisters appear on a talkshow who were born of the same mother and of the same father on the same day within minutes of each other. They are near identical in every way. 1) Audience member one says "they are not twins."2) Audience member two says "they are twins." This is a contradiction, but both are rightI then gave a clue:They are twins, but they are not twinsThe solution to this is realized not by what is here, but who is missing. It happens that there is a third person missing from this equation that the audience never imagined. They searched and searched and finally gave up. Indeed the girls were twins, but they were not twins, they were triplets and their other sister was not invited to the program. And so it is when we make logical deductions drawn from proof texts when we don't have all the variables and we don't invite the Holy Spirit. There are also statements that lie in order to make themselves correct:"This sentence containns two errors." 1) Error #1 is spelling2) Error #2 is the facts contained in the sentence concerning itself.The sentence has to lie to be correct. At the end of the day, if we follow logic to its final conclusion we get pragmatism. Because when we make logic the final authority and not the Holy Spirit as our interpreter of Scripture- we have left out that person who will keep us from that inevitable (pragmatism). When we don't desire counsel from the Holy Spirit to lead us in conformity with, but beyond the sacred page in our lives we are almost trapped to always make logical decisions based on proof texts in our lives.God Bless,-Robert
Indeed the girls were twins, but they were not twins, they were triplets and their other sister was not invited to the program.Then you lied when you answered yes to:And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of two offspring born at the same birth"?
Hi Nasher,The analogy only works if one is allowed to use the assumption you mentioned. Indeed there were two offspring born at birth; what you are not told is that there is a third also. Example:If I have $50 in my pocket and you ask me if I have $5 and I say yes; then I have not lied to you. I have [ed] told you the truth, but not the whole truth. Some things are on a need-to-know basis. It also demonstrates the limitations of yes and no answers during questioning. And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of two offspring born at the same birth"?Since there were two offspring born at birth they are twins; but because the audience did not imagine there could be a third offspring they answered the questions as they did and assumed an impossibility. And because of this the depth of their ability to conceive was insufficient to add one more word to their sentence that had surely given the riddle away.And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of only two offspring born at the same birth"? Then you lied when you answered yes to:And I assume that the audience members mean a twin to be "One of two offspring born at the same birth"?And here stands the reason why we so desperately need the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. We don't know everything and we simply cannot make decisions based on our own finite perceptions in hope that everyone is telling us everything they know.God Bless,-Robert
Robert, you have twisted the meaning of "One of two"The triplet is not one of two, but one of three.
Hi Nasher,I think to continue on would be unprofitable so I will relent and leave it at that and hope that the imperfect analogy has to some degree served the purpose of demonstrating that we are finite and must not lean to our own understanding. I heard that little riddle when I was in 7th grade and liked to have pulled my hair out (not literally). In many cases when we go to make life decisions we don't even know what the variables are and try to make decisions not knowing that there is some sort of 'x' factor or any number of unfathomable variables. The angel that announced the birth of Sampson asked the parents, “Why is it that you ask me my name seeing it is Wonderful?.” This word could be interpreted "beyond your comprehension." If an angels name could be beyond our comprehension, how wonderful are the mysteries of God? My mind staggers and stumbles to understand how it could be that an angel would essentially tell these folks, "It would be futile to tell you my name- because you wouldn't comprehend it anyhow."
I don't mean by that 'going forward at a meeting'. I think Fox has much to say to our doctrinal evangelicalism but I think he was right on the edge of a wrong 'ultimate authority'.Getting back to the "inner-light" I know one of the reasonings behind the wording that George Fox uses is that the Holy Spirit revealed truth and namely the truth of Jesus Christ by direct revelation. Only one in scripture does God use His own finger to write words (the 10 commandments). Other then that the Spirit speaks to the prophets and those that would hear the prophets speaking. This type of communication was verbal and was carried on for a long time. God would at times tell prophets to write down what is said into a scroll. But it behoves us not just to read these things but to listen and hear from the Spirit that spoke them. Being the Spirit of God. This wording can seem very open and many jump on it with other sort of revelations and new age thinking. But I think that we need to genuinely hear from the Holy Spirit, And yes God will primarily use His word in this. Personally my safeguard is the word of God, if an interpretation of scripture from a (spirit) is contray to the word of God then I will reject it. But we have to take in part also that many things said can be the fuller meaning of scripture. The spiritual meaning of scripture.I think you are right Ron that Fox at some levels was digging down to get to the person and reality of communion with Christ (His Spirit).
I think Fox has much to say to our doctrinal evangelicalism but I think he was right on the edge of a wrong 'ultimate authority'.I think John Fox was a genuine believer and was a reaction against the dead orthodoxy of his day. He knew the reality of the Spirit and preached in power and had a genuine knowlege of Christ.Where he seems to have gotton off the mark is in the realization that the Spirit who "breathed out" the New Testament (And the Old) is the same Spirit who is within us who beleive. He Is the Very God Himself. And so the Word and the Spirit are one. That is the Written Word is the embodiment of the Spirit in words written.In the Written Word we have the objective revelation of the "Faith once for all delivered to the Saints" but in the Spirit we have the Reality of this Truth which is embodied in the Word.We need both. The Word without the Spirit is dead letters. The Spirit without the Word is ethereal and subjective. The Spirit works in us through the Word. "Sanctify them in the Truth, Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17) The Spirit rides best in His own Chariot - Joseph Carroll.I like this quote which I believe is balanced:"When we come to the divine Word, nearly our whole being is involved. We must come with a heart which seeks after God, with a clear, sober mind, and with an open spirit. If we open our spirit to God and to His Word, we can touch God Himself behind the printed page. It is not just a matter of reading with our eyes, understanding with our mind, or seeking with our heart; it is also a matter of touching God in our spirit. If we exercise our whole being in this way, we not only receive a revelation, but some divine element revealed and conveyed by His Word will be transmitted into our spirit. So, Ephesians 6:17-18 says that we have to "receive...the word of God, by means of all prayer and petition..." We should take the word of the Bible not only by reading and studying, but also "by means of all prayer." We should read and study the Bible prayerfully; that is, we must exercise our spirit to contact the Lord by prayer with the reading of the divine Word."Life Study of GenesisGraftedbranch
Graftedbranch's... the Written Word is the embodiment of the Spirit in words written. This would give the scriptures the same status viz a viz the Spirit as we give Jesus of Nazareth viz a viz the Son. Do you really want to make the scriptures an incarnation of the Spirit?I love the scriptures and spend my life in their study and proclamation but God is bigger than His book.
This would give the scriptures the same status viz a viz the Spirit as we give Jesus of Nazareth viz a viz the Son. Do you really want to make the scriptures an incarnation of the Spirit?Christ is the Word made flesh. The Scriptures are the written Word. Christ in the flesh is God expressed in the flesh. The Scriptures are God in Christ expressed in the written Word.The book is not God. But the words in the book are breathed out by God. That is they are the expression of God in written words.The Spirit who breathed out these words is the Same Spirit of Christ who is within us who believe. And the Word's of the Scripture contain and express the revelation of the Person of the Word. They are One. The written Word testifies of the Living Word. The Written Word reveals the Living Word. And through the written Word, the Spirit within us unveils the Living Word and communicates Him to us and into us. "He who eats Me shall live because of Me, My Words are Spirit and Life".2 corinthians 3:15-16 says, "But to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies on their (the Jews) heart; But whenever their heart turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.He then goes on to say in vs. 18 "But we all with unveiled face. beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit."The veil is over the heart at the reading of Moses, (the written word). But whenever the heart turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.What veil? the one on the heart at the reading of the Word.And when the veil is taken away and we Behold Him, reflect Him and are being transformed by the Spirit, Where is this revelation from? It is from the written Word. The Spirit unveils Christ in the Word to us when our heart is turned to the Lord. We see the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ and we are transformed into His Image, even as by the Lord Spirit.The veil is over the heart when reading the Word, and the veil is taken away in Christ and we behold Him there. That is in the Word. And the Spirit within us transforms us.Graftedbranch
Did George Fox distinguish between the 'light of God' and the 'seed of God'?
George Fox felt that the INNER LIGHT far exceeded obedience to the Word of God.
I know that is not the LIGHT David spoke of in the Psalms,
Thy [b][color=CC0000]WORD [/color][b][color=CC0000]LIGHT[/color][b][color=CC0000]LAMP[/color]
George Fox dis-reguarded the Word as secondary to the INNER LIGHT he had...hummmmmmmm!
Also the WORD of God is LIVING and Powerful and sharper than a two edge sword. And no where when we put on the whole armour of God is the "Inner Light even mentioned". Actually the INNER LIGHT concept is not even in scripture at all.
Love in Christ
Katy-Did
Hi Katy, (Please note my EDIT at the end.)
I've read your post to me on p10 of the General Topics thread 'Is speaking in tongues...' and it was helpful to my understanding better what is driving your thinking. I think personal experience drives us all (if we allow it) to seek a truer understanding of God Himself. We have common ground in that and I will answer the tongues thread much later today.
Now that I've finished writing this post, I see it is long, but I do believe it is worthwhile to communicate in more depth. What I've shared is intended to clue you into the way I figure things out. Maybe you do it the same way, but if not, then from now on you'll know I'm a lateral thinker by training, not by nature.
I noticed you had posted here, so here I am... trying to tune into what you are getting at in your statements against 'inner light'. The main reason I'm working on this, is that you seem to dispose of the whole terminology, despite its usefulness within Christianity, [u]if kept in line with scripture
Perhaps it is more helpful to you if I define my terms, rather than expecting you to guess. It was helpful in the other thread that you have now made a statement which helps me to understand how you define your terms (there).
OK: so what I am [i]always
One of these, which is the most obvious in scripture, but probably the hardest to [i]see[i]and[u]big
So here, I'd like you to consider that there are two sets of parallels in operation in scripture. One is God and anti-God and the other is His revelation of Himself before Christ, and now Christ in us through the Holy Spirit. But, before Christ came the Law, which was an outward expression of the life the Holy Spirit comes to enable the believer from within. (I suppose that's a third parallel, actually.) I think we need to bear all three in mind, then, when setting ourselves to oppose another Christian's understanding, because we all have backgrounds; some are Christian, some are not, some are sequestered in an Old Covenant mindset, and some have captured New Covenant truth in more or less of its fulness, and some, as you also have observed, have abandoned the anchor of the written word of God - laying themselves open as a prey to unholy spirits; which can be even more difficult to disentangle, compared with simple pagan Godlessness.
Since coming to SI, I've become much more aware of that mix of understanding, misunderstanding and personal experience of not knowing God and coming to know Him better. I brought my own brand of confusion with me, also, and am eternally grateful, literally, to those who have prayed for me, whom God heard and answered.
So, in the tongues thread, we are sure there is a phenomenon of tongues as an outworking of the dynamic presence of the Holy Spirit and that also there is a counterfeit 'tongues' which cannot be testified to by the Holy Spirit in the hearer of them, nor (you pointed out,) does the [i]life[i]internal[u]the
Your quote from David saying
Psalm 119:105
Thy word is a lamp to my feet
And a light unto my path
is, then, an external picture of something which [i]becomes
So, as the Word (Christ), now can be [i]in[u]this is not the same as the 'inner light' idea[u]is[u]from the man himself[i]rather than Christ
Another verse (first below) also tells a slightly different truth (that God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul - Gen 2:7)), which also finds resonance in the (following) New Testament verses:
Proverbs 20:27
The spirit of a man [i]is
Romans 8
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. [u]For we do not know
27 Now He who searches the hearts [Jesus?] knows what the mind of the Spirit [i]is,[i]the will of
A further point I would like you to consider, therefore, is that there are also always [i]two[u]in Christ[u]Christ in me
How you and I describe this truth has to be most carefully worded, so as to show both what you are saying (that there is an 'inner light' concept which [u]is counterfeit[i][b]true[u]through believing into Christ as Saviour and LORD
Or, how would express the truth of Christ within us?
I ask, because you said:
Which, as I read it, makes no sense, unless you mean that armour is something we put on inside - which it may well be. This is where we hide the word in our hearts (our sword), by our hearts we believe (our shield), experience the peace of God by which our feet are to be shod, and His love which truly is our breastplate; in our minds we are renewed (the helmet of our salvation) and the whole is held in place by truth (our belt).And no where when we put on the whole armour of God is the "Inner Light even mentioned".
This verse comes to mind, then: (KJV)
Romans 13:12
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
According to Tyndale, the armour of light means:[i]Faith, hope, love, the fear of God, truth and all that the light of God's word teaches.
I have no doubt you can say 'amen' to such a statement, as do I.
EDIT: With reference to tongues, then, if they are of the Holy Spirit, they are true. If they are fleshly, they are counterfeit, noting nevertheless that [i]none
Psalms 42:7
Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls;
All Your waves and billows have gone over me.
Revelation 1:15
His feet [i]were
Amen.
philologos,I was wondering what would be your input on the following concept.
I think Jesus said I knew you before your mothers womb.
Now...If you look at a human being, just say, in abstract. And also,just say,this human is a extremely sinfull heathen.Totally anti Jesus.
This is still a awsome entity. A human is such an awesome thing.
Do you think that maybe since God personally created this human that there is an "essence: of God about him? Or maybe somehow Gods "signature" is on all men even though they are tottally separated from God? [it just seems tto me for man to miss his destiny with God is so unthinkable]
....David
What is wrong with using the words, "Inner light"? I have no idea what the Quakers believe in terms with it and frankly I don't care to know. Some years ago, there was a stirring amongst evangelicals about the use of the term "Inner Healing", they were concerned about it's usage in the New Age movement. When a surgeon opens opens us up to correct a problem in the body and that part of the body begins to heal, wouldn't it be right to say that your innards are healing?
Wouldn't the same be true if Jesus is living in your heart couldn't you say that Jesus who is Light is in your "inner" most being?
I think sometimes people get freaked out on the usage of words. For instance, we think that Astrology is bad. Yet the Magi(A member of the Zoroastrian priesthood caste of the Medes and Persians.) were astrologers and they worshiped God. Though there is nothing wrong with studying the stars.
Another example is the word "Gay". We can't use it in our everyday vernacular anymore, but the word still means colourful and happy.
Inner Light, Inner Healing, there is nothing wrong with these terms, it's how men have attached those terms with something bad or taboo.
Compliments wrote:
Inner Light, Inner Healing, there is nothing wrong with these terms, it's how men have attached those terms with something bad or taboo.
It is because of this very thing that one - I have learned through talking with JWs - should limit the use of theological expressions when discussing theology with those who we do not know well because they may, and do, attach different meanings to them then what is understood normally by those of orthodox faith. They may agree with you and not until later you discover they attached a different meaning and you are left feeling mortified that you agreed with something so far off the wall! So, I have learned it is better to use twelve words to descibe a concept when normally one or two words would do. That way there can be no misunderstanding by the listener what is meant by the speaker.
Blessings,
ginnyrose
Well put Ginny, no arguments from me! ;-)
Some excerpts,
[b]Primitive Christianity Revived
in the faith and practice of the people called Quakers.[i]by William Penn
READER:—
BY this short ensuing treatise, thou wilt perceive the subject of it,—viz.: The Light of Christ in Man, as the Manifestation of God's Love for Man's Happiness. Now, forasmuch as this is the peculiar testimony and characteristic of the people called Quakers,—their great fundamental in religion,—that by which they have been distinguished from other professors of Christianity in their time, and to which they refer all people about faith, worship, and practice both in their ministry and writings,—that as the fingers shoot out of the hand, and the branches from the body of the tree,— so true religion, in all the parts and articles of it, springs from this divine principle in man. And because the prejudices of some are very great against this people and their way; and that others, who love their seriousness and commend their good life, are yet, through mistakes, or want of inquiry, under jealousy of their unsoundness in some points of faith; and that there are not a few in all persuasions which desire earnestly to know and enjoy God in that sensible manner this people speak of, and who seem to long after a state of holiness and acceptance with God, but are under doubts and despondings of their attaining it, from the want they find in themselves of inward power to enable them, and are unacquainted with this efficacious agent which God hath given and appointed for their supply.
For these reasons and motives, know, reader, I have taken in hand to write this small tract of the nature and virtue of the light of Christ within man, and what and where it is, and for what end, and therein of the religion of the people called Quakers; ...
There are divers ways of speaking they have been led to use, by which they declare and express what this principle is, about which I think fit to precaution the reader-viz., they call it, [i]The light of Christ within man[i]light within[i]the manifestation[i]appearance of Christ[i]witness of God[i]seed of God[i]seed of the kingdom, wisdom[i]word in the heart[i]grace that appears to all men[i]spirit given to every man to profit with[i]truth in the inward parts[i]spiritual leaven that leavens the whole lump of man
It is to this principle of Light, Life, and Grace, that this People refer all: for they say it is the great Agent in Religion; [i]that[i]Conviction[i]Conversion[i]Regeneration
... that the reason of so much [i]irreligion[i]superstition[i]Heart-reformation
They will be religious without it, and Christians [i]without
So natural is it to Man, in his degenerate state, to [i]prefer[i]convictions and teachings of it[i]the root of all true religion in man, and the good seed from whence all good fruits[i]divine[i]universal[i]it begets a true sense and sorrow for sin[i]it enables them to forsake sin, and sanctifies from it[i]it applies God's mercies in Christ for the forgiveness of sins that are past, unto justification, upon such sincere repentance and obedience[i]it gives to the faithful, perseverance unto a perfect man, and the assurance of blessedness, world without end.
To the truth of all which, they call in a threefold evidence: [i]First[i]Secondly[i]lastly[i]their own[i]history[i]treatise
I SHALL begin with the evidence of the blessed Scriptures of Truth, for this divine principle, and that under the name of [i]light
John i. 1. [i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
Verse 3. [i]All things were made by him
Verse 4. [i]In him was life, and the life was the light of men
Verse 9. [i]That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world
([i]Note: words in italics extant
[url=http://www.strecorsoc.org/penn/pcr_epistle.html]Primitive Christianity Revived
Mike,there are not a few in all persuasions which desire earnestly to know and enjoy God in that sensible manner this people speak of, and who seem to long after a state of holiness and acceptance with God, but are under doubts and despondings of their attaining it, from the want they find in themselves of inward power to enable them, and are unacquainted with this efficacious agent which God hath given and appointed for their supply.
thank you for posting this. I will endeavour to read the whole article to find out whether, and if so how, Quakers define new birth.
I think one of the many reasons that Fox and the Quakers scared so many orthodox christians is because of the fear that rose up in the "Minister only" ministry of churches since the very early church. Fear rooted in jealousy, contempt, and envy. I do believe that the meetings they had were very "spirit filled".
According to Paul, Christ always meant for the body to minister. Paul lays down guidelines and tells us to let each one speak, and others judge if it be by the Holy Spirit. From the heart of Fox is the desire to let God choose who He will use to minister, speak, bless, empower. This defuses man's "control" factor. When man loses control, man is not a happy camper, unless of course he be dead to self.
The scripture, as our brother Fox reminded us is full and complete, if only we would believe it in such a way as to abandon what we have been taught, that the scipture contradicts.
When man seeks to build his own kingdom instead of the kingdom of God, then there is no light, because God cannot dwell in such a place. We then find ourselves with icabod written over the door and Jesus is on the outside, knocking (by the Holy Spirit), trying to get back in.
I believe that God wants to have a very personal relationship with each of us. We are not to rely totally on His relationships with the greats of the Bible. We read of those in order to bring us to a place where we have our own relationship. It is there that we begin to have our own testimony. Each believer that is alive in Christ should have their own walk with God and their own testimony. Then God becomes close, real, personal, and I believe powerful.
One other quick volley, in my humble opinion, we do not celebrate communion near enough any more, and I believe the church at large has suffered greatly over this blight. But then, that is probably for another thread.
God bless you all. You are all very "SI", "Spiritually Inspired".
In Him,
"O"
Onesimus4God said:
I thought you put this rather well!The scripture, as our brother Fox reminded us is full and complete, if only we would believe it in such a way as to abandon what we have been taught, that the scipture contradicts.