Quakers

[Daniel9v9]

Need they be an offshoot of early Orthodoxy/Catholicism?

No. What I'm saying is that the Church has drawn a line around the Ecumenical Creeds. I think if any religious body denies or goes hard against the creeds, which is simply a summary of Scripture, it's both suspicious and telling of their religious beliefs. As Christians, we have to be mindful of and guard against errors such as Pelagianism, Adoptionism and false prophecy, all of which is characteristic of Quakerism, albeit in various degrees.

 

[Albion]

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.

I agree with that. However, the point was about the way Quakers are viewed by other people.

It is not Quaker social activism that is most noticeable to these non-Quakers; it is the theology as it concerns the "inner light," the starkly unstructured worship services, the acceptance of a non-Trinitarian view of God, etc. that (as we have seen also in the responses posted here on this thread) is uppermost in the minds of non-Quakers when thinking about Quakerism.

 

[TheGoodLight]

I've attended a (theologically) liberal meeting a fair share. I would love to visit a more conservative one, and depending on where I end up moving perhaps I'll have a chance.

 

[Mingo Bible Believer]

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.

I am not a Quaker, but I remember a grandmother who was a member of the Mt Gilead Friends Church (Evangelical Friends) in Ohio. Their doctrine of Jesus Christ does not differ from that of other evangelicals or the Church of England.
Barclay's 17th century exposition of Quaker doctrine is classic. Conservative Quakers

 

[Basil the Great]

As I recall, it was the Quakers that pushed for the abolition of slavery, more than any other Christian group in the United States. Hence, I think that they are to be admired for their social activism, despite any theological issues.

 

[Mingo Bible Believer]

No. What I'm saying is that the Church has drawn a line around the Ecumenical Creeds. I think if any religious body denies or goes hard against the creeds, which is simply a summary of Scripture, it's both suspicious and telling of their religious beliefs. As Christians, we have to be mindful of and guard against errors such as Pelagianism, Adoptionism and false prophecy, all of which is characteristic of Quakerism, albeit in various degrees.

As a rather conservative Baptist, I am somewhat dismayed by your approach to Quakerism. Baptist are also suspicious of Ecumenical Creeds, especially as tests of orthodoxy. I wonder if you would judge us (and you are judging) as harshly as you do Quakers. It is true that some Quaker groups would not be accepted as Christian by this forum, but that is in the context of preserving order and avoiding the hatefulness so often present on the internet.
While I would, as a Baptist, accept the Apostles' Creed and the Old Roman Creed as Biblical, because they quote directly from the New Testament without additions, your view that the Ecumenical Creeds are "simply a summary of Scripture" ignores the fact that those creeds go beyond Scripture, and though they may be true, they are interpretive.
I suppose I must accept that Baptists grant more freedom of thought than Lutherans do. But by the same token, Lutherans on this forum might consider that they are not the only people to define orthodoxy. Some might even consider that William Barclay, the 17th-century Quaker apologist, did a fair job of it as well.

 

[Mingo Bible Believer]

As I recall, it was the Quakers that pushed for the abolition of slavery, more than any other Christian group in the United States. Hence, I think that they are to be admired for their social activism, despite any theological issues.

Quite right. And it was Hicks, the one to have drawn the most criticism here by name, who was among the first and most devoted to doing practical things to help slaves. The criticism was also expanded to the Quakers today who are followers of Hicks. To my knowledge, none of the Quaker groups today is directly descended from the Hicksite meetings without extensive changes from his theology. The Hicksite meetings I as a historian am familiar with have all become evangelical and apparently trinitarian.

 

[Mingo Bible Believer]

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.

While I think that you deform Quaker thought even in the way you quote their direct words, and while I share you concern for the basic defining doctrines of Christianity, I think this blanket rejection of Quakerism as a valid Christian community is misplaced. I believe that for several reasons, but one of them is the fact that, to my knowledge, fully 89 percent (Quaker statistics for 2012) of those claiming to be Quakers are either evangelical or in programmed meetings. This suggests that a vast majority of Quakers would adhere to an orthodoxy that satisfies even your stringent standards.
It is even likely that a greater percentage of Quakers agree with your theology than do Lutherans. I am surrounded by Lutherans where I live in Finland, and I can tell you that only a small minority of them believe in the Trinity. I even know a Lutheran clergyman, a personal friend, who once told me that the only phrase in the Creed that he believes is that Jesus died and was buried. I was shocked and told him so, and affirmed that I myself believe every word of it. Pragmatically speaking, the vast majority of Lutherans could not pass the test of this forum to be accepted as Christians at all.