BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Quakers, old and new, and the 'inner light'

P
philologos Oct 25, 2005

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'?

H
habakkuk3 Oct 25, 2005

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.

P
philologos Oct 25, 2005

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.

sermonindex Oct 25, 2005

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

sermonindex Oct 25, 2005

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.

P
philologos Oct 25, 2005

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.

D
dohzman Oct 25, 2005

When you guys talk about "inter light " are you talking about the enlightening of the scripture to ones understanding?

C
crsschk Oct 26, 2005

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.

P
philologos Oct 26, 2005

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.
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?

C
Compton Oct 26, 2005

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

sermonindex Oct 26, 2005

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

C
crsschk Oct 26, 2005

..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.

T
TheophilusMD Oct 26, 2005

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.

P
philologos Oct 26, 2005

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.

D
dohzman Oct 26, 2005

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?

P
philologos Oct 26, 2005

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.

sermonindex Oct 26, 2005

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.

P
philologos Oct 26, 2005

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.

D
dohzman Oct 26, 2005

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. :-(

C
Compton Oct 26, 2005

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

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 48 posts