Quakers

[Grace2022]

Well i am afraid silent prayer i can do at home. It wouldn't suit me to be a Quaker.
I need readings from the Bible, hymns and teaching of Christ.
So what do Quakers, if any are here, believe in comparison with the Church of England? Especially regarding Jesus Christ.

 

[Albion]

Well i am afraid silent prayer i can do at home. It wouldn't suit me to be a Quaker.
I need readings from the Bible, hymns and teaching of Christ.
So what do Quakers, if any are here, believe in comparison with the Church of England? Especially regarding Jesus Christ.

Traditional Quakers have no clergy, no sacraments, and no binding statements of belief. They believe in the individual being enlightened by the Holy Spirit. As for Christ, some believe he was the Son of God, others do not. None of that would be standard stuff in the Church of England, even given its reputation for allowing a breadth of opinion on many issues. And of course, the worship services of the two are nothing alike.

 

[timothyu]

Traditional Quakers have no clergy

They have elders

 

[Archivist]

They have elders

But the elders don’t preside over their services.

 

[timothyu]

But the elders don’t preside over their services.

From what I know by way of an acquaintance of mine, meetings yes but 'services' as you call it, the quiet time is open to anyone who is inspired to speak. No elder leadership in what to think or say. They leave that communication channel up to God supposedly. More a sense of community than institution I suppose.

 

[Archivist]

From what I know by way of an acquaintance of mine, meetings yes but 'services' as you call it, the quiet time is open to anyone who is inspired to speak. No elder leadership in what to think or say. They leave that communication channel up to God supposedly. More a sense of community than institution I suppose.

Correct. That’s what I said.

Earlier in the thread I described a Quaker wedding I attended. No one presided or pronounced the couple husband and wife. We all just sat quietly until the couple stood and pledged their love for each other.

 

[timothyu]

Earlier in the thread I described a Quaker wedding I attended. No one presided or pronounced the couple husband and wife. We all just sat quietly until the couple stood and pledged their love for each other.

Like watching kids sleep

 

[Albion]

Correct. That’s what I said.

Earlier in the thread I described a Quaker wedding I attended. No one presided or pronounced the couple husband and wife. We all just sat quietly until the couple stood and pledged their love for each other.

True, although in the wedding service that I attended, various members of the congregation stood up during that quite time, as they were moved to do, and gave a little testimony about married love or something in that vein. Sometimes there was a big pause between speakers and sometimes they came close together.

Then only did the couple go forward and, more or less in conventional fashion, speak their vows to each other. Everyone in attendance signed the ledger as witnesses, there being no officiant.

 

[Archivist]

True, although in the wedding service that I attended, various members of the congregation stood up during that quite time, as they were moved to do, and gave a little testimony about married love or something in that vein. Sometimes there was a big pause between speakers and sometimes they came close together.

Then only did the couple go forward and, more or less in conventional fashion, speak their vows to each other. Everyone in attendance signed the ledger as witnesses, there being no officiant.

Yes, we all signed the ledger. However only one person could sign the state license as minister. That is state law, not the Quaker’s doing.

 

[Albion]

Yes, we all signed the ledger. However only one person could sign the state license as minister. That is state law, not the Quaker’s doing.

Right, and that, I think, is the Secretary of the congregation who isn't a cleric.

 

[Daniel9v9]

You found fault with The Friends. Yet in your own denomination do you follow Jesus as you suggested they don't?
Jesus told us the The Kingdom/governance of the Father was the good news. His Kingdom will come. His will would be done in earth as it is in heaven as we realized we were one with the Father and not apart and separate entities running around like mini gods. That prime focus seems to have taken a back seat to man's concepts of what was going on and who was what as they formed a religion and doctrines built in their own image that still kept us separated.

If someone wants to grow to be like Jesus then they are simply becoming one with the Father. What would the Adversary do? Encourage us to become one and realize what we are, or encourage us to remain separate and thinking of ourselves as unique, that being gods rather than simple extensions of God?

So what better fits the concept of this oneness? Sitting quietly amongst others understanding you are all the same or sitting in churches designed to be hierarchical and rather than loving all as self because they are you, seeking to save self .

Sorry to say there are many errors in that argument. Let me try and explain the issue in very simple and practical terms.

The Bible teaches that there is one God: YHWH. It also says that Jesus is YHWH. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all called Lord and God, yet there is only one God - one YHWH. This is a great mystery revealed to us by God through Jesus, and the apostles and prophets. And this is not insignificant or irrelevant, but core to the Christian faith, because it boils down to this: Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. Christians are saved by God’s grace through the person and works of Jesus Christ, and they worship Him because He is the one true God. To put it more forcefully, Jesus is not a god, He is THE GOD, and the only way to the Father. So, to deny that Jesus is God is to deny God.

The Bible teaches that whoever believes and is baptised into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, will be saved, but whoever does not believe is condemned. So, to disbelieve in and deny that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, or to deny that there is only one God, is to deny the one true God.

The Bible teaches that whoever believes and is baptised receives the forgiveness of sins, adoption and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Through the works of the Holy Spirit we are sanctified, that is, made Christ-like.

Quakers who follow in the steps of Hicks deny God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They deny that Jesus is YHWH in flesh. As such, they deny God.

In the Quakers' Book of Discipline, they write: "Each person must seek individual guidance and follow his own conception of God." But, the Bible teaches very explicitly who God is - Jesus Christ, God in flesh.
Here are just a few of many verses (best read in context): Isaiah 44:6 Revelation 1:8 John 10:30 Colossians 2:9 John 1:10 Romans 11:36 1 Corinthians 8:6 John 1:2 Colossians 1:15-16 John 8:58

In the Friends' Apology, Barclay writes that "God is not divisible into parts and measures and therefore cannot be resisted nor wounded nor crucified." This goes hard against the Bible, who clearly portrays Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God, as crucified.
John 3:14 Matthew 20:18-19 John 19:18 Romans 5:8 Galatians 3:13 1 Peter 2:24

Quakers also claim that "Scripture cannot be considered the principal ground of all truth, for the Spirit is the first and principal leader", but this is contrary to what the Bible says: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." To illustrate this point further, Quakers write: "Many other Quakers draw spiritual sustenance from various religious traditions, such as Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and the nature religions." and "Most Quakers do not consider the Bible to be the final authority or the only source of sacred wisdom. We read it in the context of other religious writings and sources of wisdom." These statements are profoundly anti-Scriptural and not Christian.

You can find more in their own words here:
FAQs

There's much more I can write, but this post is already lengthy and I want to keep the focus on two things: (1) Jesus is the only way to the Father. No one comes to the Father except through faith in Jesus as God in flesh. (2) There is no inner light apart from the Holy Spirit, given only by God's grace through faith in Jesus. So, when someone who claims to have an "Inner Light" say something to the effect that Jesus is not YHWH - God in flesh - or that God is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he is not speaking in accordance with the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit has already spoken this in the Bible.

 

[Albion]

I don't think there's been much of an "argument" in this thread. Rather it's been an attempt to describe the Quakers as the OP asked us for.

But as for the information you offered us, keep in mind that it, and the link, refer to only one branch of the Quakers. Almost none of it would be applicable to other Quaker churches.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I don't think there's been much of an "argument" in this thread. Rather it's been an attempt to describe the Quakers as the OP asked us for.

But as for the information you offered us, keep in mind that it, and the link, refer to only one branch of the Quakers. Almost none of it would be applicable to other Quaker churches.

Providing this is aimed at my last post, I’d like to stress two things:

(1) As mentioned earlier, I know there are many branches of Quakers/Friends and some are more theologically liberal than others, and some closer to non-denominational, Pentecostal and Charismatic than others. Not all are anti-trinitarian. Some intermingle with other church bodies and have in effect become non-denominational or have merged with Pentecostals. However, what is distinctive to all Quakers, historically, is their elevation of personal revelation at the expense of Scriptures. From this, many problematic ideas have followed.

(2) Even contemporary forms of Friends who have rebranded as non-denominational sometimes outright deny the divinity of Christ. Here we see their inherited theology at work. This is at least true for the Friends in Norway, where I’m originally from. They essentially have a Pelagian view with regards to salvation and a Adoptionist view on Christology. My point is that while not all Quakers explicitly deny the divinity of Christ, this is one practical example of how their theological system(s) is outside of orthodox Christianity.

 

[Albion]

However, what is distinctive to all Quakers, historically, is their elevation of personal revelation at the expense of Scriptures. From this, many problematic ideas have followed.

That's true of Quakerism historically, but it is not true of all the branches today. For most Quakers, it's probably correct to say, but a big shift occurred in recent decades and we have already acknowledged that 'one size doesn't fit all' when it comes to Quakers.

 

[timothyu]

Could part of people's sometimes negative view of 'Friends' be over their involvement in lobbying for social justice?

 

[Albion]

Could part of people's sometimes negative view of 'Friends' be over their involvement in lobbying for social justice?

Doubtful. And I am of the impression that that the negative views, such as they are, come overwhelmingly from people disagreeing with Quaker theology (as we have already seen on this thread).

 

[timothyu]

Doubtful. And I am of the impression that that the negative views, such as they are, come overwhelmingly from people disagreeing with Quaker theology (as we have already seen on this thread).

Possible but without having any real first hand experience among the groups it seems they are more into loving neighbour as self and waiting for the will of God rather than following their own.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

Doubtful. And I am of the impression that that the negative views, such as they are, come overwhelmingly from people disagreeing with Quaker theology (as we have already seen on this thread).[/QUOTE]

Good point / comment.
----
Quakers have interesting history.
- Especially, early days of movement..
& coming to North America.
----
I met a few Quakers and had discussion time..years ago.
- Informative & learning experience.

 

[Daniel9v9]

That's true of Quakerism historically, but it is not true of all the branches today. For most Quakers, it's probably correct to say, but a big shift occurred in recent decades and we have already acknowledged that 'one size doesn't fit all' when it comes to Quakers.

Yep, and I've recognised that in my posts already. But the issue is that when we talk about Quakers, we can't divorce theology from Quakerism as a movement or practice, because theology is what we believe, teach and confess, and it is practical and tangible.

Of Quakers, I can think of four different categories:

(1) Bodies who follow in the steps of historical Quakerism - such as followers of Barclay, Hicks and Fox, and the Orthodox Conservative Friends, the Religious Society of Friends and the Society of Friends. They are different in doctrine but are all marked by Pelagian tendencies and personal revelation above Scriptures. The more theologically liberal branches are outright a different religion. The conservative branches are at best on the fringe of Christianity.

(2) Watered-down Quakerism. Bodies who have abandoned many of the ideas that are historically Quaker, and/or have rebranded as non-denominational, or intermingled with Pentecostal and Charismatic on one hand, or with Unitarians on the other; essentially approaching either a very loose Baptist system or something entirely freethinker and syncretist. Either way, their inherited theology is still at work in what they teach and do, and it's problematic.

(3) Unionistic or merged bodies. Bodies who have merged with other existing Church bodies, such as Pentecostal, Charismatic, Evangelical, free churches or non-denominational, or Unitarian. They have mostly adopted a different theological system and church practice, but still retain some form "inner light" teaching. These bodies really only qualify as Quaker in proportion to what they historically taught, and is, in my opinion, better understood as whatever new body they have grown into. For example, there's not a huge leap from a very watered down Quakerism to a Holiness movement on one hand, or a Unitarian on the other. In either case, I think it would be better to understand them as Charismatic or Unitarian (respectively), with some Quaker heritage, but not Quaker proper.

(4) Nominal Quakers. I have never heard of it or seen it, but I suppose it's possible that some are Quaker in name, but not in doctrine. For example, perhaps some have entirely adopted a Pentecostal system of thought, but because of their heritage still consider themselves Quaker. If you or anyone know of any bodies like this, I'm happy to learn. But even in this case, I don't think it's fair or honest to consider them Quaker as they would be teaching against what is historically Quaker.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this: Quaker or Friend theology in any sense is problematic because the root of this particular movement or idea is anti-Scriptural, and so, what follows, to varying degrees, is also questionable. However, that doesn't mean that they don't contribute with many good things in the society or are very devout, but that's not a Biblical way of measuring what is Christian and what is not - for by that standard, any moralistic religion would need to be accepted as Christian. So this is the point I've been repeating: You cannot deny God's Word and still be Christian.

 

[timothyu]

but that's not a Biblical way of measuring what is Christian and what is not - for by that standard, any moralistic religion would need to be accepted as Christian. So this is the point I've been repeating: You cannot deny God's Word and still be Christian.

Need they be an offshoot of early Orthodoxy/Catholicism?