Quaker Question (not the oatmeal!) [Archive]

View Full Version : Quaker Question (not the oatmeal!)

Pro31:28

09-08-2008, 04:49 PM

Hey Family,

Well AFF has had to take a bit of a back burner in my life, as I have started back to work and back to my own school work. However I NEED YOU! please do not think I am a fair weather friend, but instead think of me like the college student who comes home for toilet paper and cup 'o soup.

I am writing a paper comparing the similiarities between Early American Quakers (Georger Fox, William Penn) to modern day Pentecostals. Does anyone have any info on this? I have found some interesting things, but I know there are some who are way smarter than me on here...

Here are some points I have begun to make:

*Early Quakers and modern Pentecostals both felt that their “religion” went beyond the confines of a Sunday morning worship service.
*Early Quakers and modern Pentecostals put a strong reliance of prayer.
*Early Quakers and modern Pentecostals both have (had) an outward expression of the presence of the Lord (i.e, lift hands, ‘quaking’, glossololia)
*Both have been scorned by society (Current Pentecostals have not had their tongues bored, however after the fact that Sarah Palin was said to be an Assembly of God Pentecostal, she suffered some negative publicity for it)
*Both are viewed by society to be extreme (fanatical) in their views

Any websites or links would be helpful...

Pro

TCSQ

09-09-2008, 03:32 AM

Here are several links that reports Early Quakers speaking in tongues.

http://www.victorious.org/churchbook/chur63.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongues

http://www.icwhp.org/article-quakers.html

http://www.mlcook.lib.oh.us/The%20Shakers%20are%20NOT%20the%20Quakers.htm

http://www.supenn.com/whitman.html

********evidently Quakers were leaning away from trinitarian theology***

http://www.abc-coggc.org/jrad/volume2/issue3/Unitarian%20Belief%20Among%20Early%20Quakers.pdf

http://lightandsilence.org/2006/12/early_quaker_trinity_questions_1.html

******Divine healing and miracles among the early quakers**********

http://hallvworthington.com/George_Fox_Selections/foxmiracles.html

TCSQ

09-09-2008, 03:34 AM

Pro31:28

09-13-2008, 06:15 PM

Hoovie

09-13-2008, 06:36 PM

Hey PRO-girl, If possible, will you consider sharing the paper after it has served it's scholarly purpose?

Thanks!

Pro31:28

09-13-2008, 06:55 PM

Hey PRO-girl, If possible, will you consider sharing the paper after it has served it's scholarly purpose?

Thanks!

LOL! Well it depends on the grade... :tease
After the way I feel about writing it tonight, I may not even want to share it with the professor! I have had a really rough week, and I am generally an anti-procrastinator, but not this weekend!
It's only an essay (2-3 pages), which should be a snap... but I am tired!

Last semester I had to write a 12 page paper on "Grace, Law, and the Beatitudes", but like a smart person I started on that early!

SDG

09-13-2008, 06:58 PM

One way they are different is that Quakers really did not believe in the necessity of baptism in the truest sense ... not for obedience or salvation

TalkLady

09-13-2008, 07:14 PM

You might want to check out some of these online works.

http://www.questia.com/library/religion/quakers.jsp

I am not saying that I agree with everything in this link but you might use it in your research.

Hoovie

09-13-2008, 07:36 PM

:kickcan:sadLOL! Well it depends on the grade... :tease
After the way I feel about writing it tonight, I may not even want to share it with the professor! I have had a really rough week, and I am generally an anti-procrastinator, but not this weekend!
It's only an essay (2-3 pages), which should be a snap... but I am tired!

Last semester I had to write a 12 page paper on "Grace, Law, and the Beatitudes", but like a smart person I started on that early!

I am feeling that way myself.

:kickcan:sad

tear in my beer...

Pro31:28

09-13-2008, 07:40 PM

:kickcan:sad

I am feeling that way myself.

:kickcan:sad

tear in my beer...

Cause I'm cryin' for ya dear....

My other half has had the week off, and he says that being my "assistant" ('honey do' guy)for the week was more work than his usual 60 hour week!

Scott Hutchinson

09-13-2008, 07:44 PM

Maybe this might be of some help.http://www.nairnquakers.org/what.htm

Scott Hutchinson

09-13-2008, 07:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nsEoG7ovZQ

Pro31:28

09-13-2008, 07:53 PM

Maybe this might be of some help.http://www.nairnquakers.org/what.htm

The main thing I am trying to compare is the "Early American" Anti-ritualistic, Quakers, not modern day quakers. They believed that one could have a very personal relationship with God and that He made Himself manifest, however because of their beliefs they were scorned by society and Pennsylvania was basically set up as a refuge for the persecuted "friends"

Scott Hutchinson

09-13-2008, 07:53 PM

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-rdImcwTFw

Pro31:28

09-13-2008, 08:20 PM

In the paper I am using the Asuza street revival as the begininning of "Modern Pentecostalism"

There are many tie-ins, I will keep y'all posted (pun intended!)

Hoovie

09-13-2008, 08:26 PM

Pro31:28

09-13-2008, 08:35 PM

I have done this in a brief comparision of the early Radical Reformers and the modern Pentecostal movement. It was published in the Pentecostal Herald in 2006. The Quackers are often included in the Anabaptist/Radical Reformers.

Ya got a link to that?? :evilglee

Hoovie

09-13-2008, 08:47 PM

Here is a little article I wrote. It was published in the Pentecostal Herald in Sept. 2005

“Radical Reformers”

The Minister was responding to questions regarding
Matthew 28:19,

“From this it must not be understood that there are
three beings, or three persons, much less that there
are three Gods in Heaven.”

Certainly this is a man who is not embracing the
historical creeds as this statement alone would label
him as an “unorthodox” preacher, if not a heretic.
His audience includes new converts to the faith as
well as youth from within the movement. At risk of
alienating himself even further from the mainstream
Christianity of the day the Bishop continued,

“ But these names are differently expressed in
consideration of the work of redemption and the
salvation of the human race; as, the Father, the
origin; the Son, the means of redemption; and the Holy
Ghost, sanctification and confirmation in salvation"

“For, although it is said by some men, that there are
three independent Persons or Beings in the Godhead,
and therefore say further: “God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Ghost,” yet we do not find such
expressions in Holy Scripture.”

Is this a modern day Pentecostal, giving a defense for
the Oneness of the Godhead?
Or perhaps an early Pentecostal discussing the “New
Issue”?

No. It was more than two centuries prior to the New
Issue debate. The man is Gerhard Roosen (1612-1711), a
prominent Mennonite bishop in Northern Germany. His
writings were recorded in Chistliches
Gemueths-Gespraech , the later, English version is in
a book titled Saving Faith which included other
Anabaptist/Mennonite Articles of Faith as well. To
this day the book is used in instruction for youth and
others seeking membership with the Old Order Mennonite
Church.

They were called the Radical Reformers, rejecting not
only the Papal authority of the Catholic Church but,
the infant Baptism of the Lutherans as well. Known
for their insistence on a “believers baptism” their
enemies labeled them as re-baptizers, or “Anabaptist”.
For this they suffered persecution at the hands of
Catholics and Reformers alike.

Such famous men as Luther and Zwingli called them
heretics. Unlike the Anabaptists’ nonresistance,
Luther and Zwingli defended their teaching with the
sword and the new Radical Reformers faced great
persecution. Thousands were burned and drowned by the
religious men of the day. Adhering to a quite
literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount the
Anabaptists were known to love and pray for those who
hated them. Many of their captors were converted by
their incredible acts of kindness in the face of cruelty
and torture.

While the early Anabaptists did not all reject the
doctrine of the Trinity entirely, they did reject the
creeds and insisted on using only the scripture as a
basis for doctrine. This led many to question the
veracity of such a dogma and statements like Roosens’
were not uncommon in early Anabaptist teaching.

A strict lifestyle of holiness was taught and expected
among Anabaptist groups and one who was born again was
expected to give himself to a life of non-conformity,
separation and humility.

It has been said that the Pentecostal holiness
churches of today have their roots in the Anabaptist
movement. Not only in some doctrine and lifestyle,
but the zeal found in the Apostolic Pentecostal
movement may certainly be a mirror reflection of those
Radical Reformers in 16th and 17th centuries.

A former Old Order Mennonite, Stephen, his wife Kristin
and three daughters attend -----------------, Mo.

Pro31:28

09-13-2008, 08:54 PM

bethola

09-13-2008, 08:56 PM

Now the Shakers an offshoot of the Quakers were MUCH more into manifesting the supernatural move of God such as dancing in the spirit and tongues, prophecy dreams and visions.
They held to a more dual nature of the Godhead as father and mother which of course in the various attributes of God those traits are present

My husband and I just went to the Shaker Village in Harrodsburg KY last weekend. I learned a LOT about "Mother Anne". VERY INTERESTING. Anne Lee actually was put in jail, I THINK, in England and while there she wrote that The Spirit of God came upon her. Sound familiar? Anyway, she NEVER made the claim that she was The Christ in Female Form, BUT, after her death this apparently became one of their core beliefs.

Their "real" name is United Brethren of the Second Coming. They believe that Mother Anne was the Second Coming and lived communally because they believed they were living in the 1000 year reign.

I could go on and on. It really is an interesting religion.

Yep! They were called "Shaking Quakers" and got PRET-TY wild! But, in later years calmed down a bit. Probably because they were getting OLDER!

Anyway, sorry to go on and on. Good Luck on your paper!

Beth in KY

Hoovie

09-14-2008, 06:44 AM

That would be you Mr. Hoover! Thanks a bunch!

yer funny!

Pro31:28

09-14-2008, 02:11 PM

yer funny!

I hear that all the time! Although it is usually followed by the word, "looking"... So thanks for leaving that part out :tease

mfblume

09-14-2008, 02:34 PM

WILLIAM PENN WAS ONENESS!

Took me a LONG TIME to find this... but check it out:

THE Sandy Foundation Shaken:
OR;
Those so Generally Believed and applauded DOCTRINES,

Of One God, Subsisting in Three Distinct and Separate Persons,

The Impossibility of God's pardoning Sinners, without a Plenary Satisfaction,

The Justification of impure Persons, by an imputative Righteousness, Refuted.

From Authority of Scripture Testimonies, and Right Reason.

By WILLIAM PENN, Jun.
A Builder on that Foundation which cannot be moved.

1 Cor. viii. 6.
But to us there is but One GOD the Father, of whom are all Things,

Micah vii. 18.
Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth Iniquity? He retaineth not His
Anger for ever, because He delighteth in Mercy,

Exod. xxiii. 7.
For I will not Justifie the Wicked,

To the Unprejudiced READER.

It was the Fault of some in Ancient Times, that they made void God's Law by Men's Traditions; and certainly I may now assume the same Complaint; for whilst I take a Serious Prospect of the Spiritual Nature, and Tendency of the Second Covenant, which God Almighty, in the Fulness of Time, by his Prophets, Prophesied to make and perfect; and also the Accomplishment thereof by JESUS CHRIST, and what was brought to pass amongst the Primitive Believers; methinks I do not only see an utter Abolishment of Ceremonial Worships, but the inscribing that Spiritual Law on the Heart, and Infusion of Holy Fear to the Inward Parts, whereby each Person became capacitated to know so much of God, as suited with his present State, from an infallible Demonstration in himself, and not on the slender Grounds of Men's Lo-here Interpretations, or Lo-there; for the Kingdom of God is within, where himself must be the Teacher of His People: But on the other Hand, when from the Noise of every Party's Pretensions to, and Contentions for their own Way, as most infallible, I am induced to an impartial Examination of them: Alas! How have all adulterated from the Purity both of Scripture Record, and Primitive Example? Receiving for Unquestionable Doctrines, the Fallible Apprehensions, and uncertain Determinations of such Councils, whose Faction, Prejudice, and Cruelty Soon parallel'd the foregoing Heathnish Persecutions; and yet that the Results of Persons so incompetently qualified, should at this Day in their Authority remain unquestioned by the Nations, is Matter both of Astonishment and Pity; but an implicit Faith has ever been the Consequence of Ignorance, Idleness and Fear, being strong Impediments to a Judicious Enquiry, how far profest and imposed Opinions have their Consistency with Reason, and the True Religion. But that which most of all deserves a Lamentation, is, that Protestants, whose better Arguments have confuted the Plea of such as made Tradition, and Men's Prescriptions unquestionable in Circumstantials, should themselves, by Print and Practice, so openly declare and contend for its Authority in Essentials; as must be obvious to any that observe their Zealous Anathema's against whomsoever refuse a Compliance with them in Doctrines, manifestly Bottom'd upon Mens nice Inventions.

This is the right State of the Controversie that is maintained by us (contemptibly called Quakers) against the World, and the undoubted Reason of our Severe Treatment at its Hands, the End of God Almighty's raising us, being for no other Purpose, than to declare, That which our Eyes have seen, our Ears heard, and which our Hands have handled of the Eternal Word, in Opposition to the private Opinions, Conjectures, and Interpretations of Men concerning God and Religion, that all People might thereby be reduced to Faith in, and Obedience to the Universal Grace which brings Salvation; which as it only can restore Sound Judgment concerning God, and effect Redemption from Iniquity, so its being relinquish'd by Men, was the very Ground both of their Division in Judgment, and Corruption in Manners.

That this hath been, and is our Case, I shall produce an Instance, which is indeed the Occasion of this Treatise.

continued...

mfblume

09-14-2008, 02:41 PM

The whole writing is here: http://mikeblume.com/sandyfoundation.htm

Penn was put in the Tower of London for this writing, and released due to his extreme Christian example. It is a ONENESS writing!

mfblume

09-14-2008, 02:46 PM

Pertinent sections showing oneness:

The Question was this, Whether we own'd one God-head, Subsisting in Three Distinct and Separate Persons, as the Result of various Revises and Amendments; which being denied by us, as a Doctrine no where Scriptural, T. V. frames this Syllogism from the beloved Disciple's Words.

1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are one.

These are either three Manifestations, three Operations, three Substances, or three somethings else beside Subsistences.

But they are not three Manifestations, three Operations, three Substances, nor three any thing else beside Subsistences: Ergo, Three Subsistences.

G. W. Utterly rejected his Terms, as not to be found in Scripture, nor deduceable from the Place he instanced: Wherefore he desires their Explanation of their Terms, inasmuch as God did not use to wrap his Truths up in Heathenish Metaphysicks, but in plain Language: Notwithstanding we could not obtain a better Explication, than Person, or of Person, than the Mode of a Substance; To all which G. W. and my self urged several Scriptures, proving God's compleat Unity: And when we queried how God was to be understood, if in an abstractive Sense from his Substance: They concluded it a point more fit for Admiration than Disputation. But a little to review his Syllogism; the Manner of it shews him as little a Scholar, as it's Matter does a Christian; but I shall over-look the first, and so much of the second, as might deserve my Objection to his Major, and give in short my Reason, why I flatly deny his Minor Proposition. No one Substance can have three distinct Subsistences, and preserve its own Unity: For granting them the most favourable Definition, every subsistence, will have its own Substance; so that three distinct Subsistences, or Manners of Being, will require three distinct Substances or Beings; consequently three Gods. For if the infinite God-head subsists in three separate Manners or Forms, then is not any one of them a perfect and compleat Subsistence without the other two; so parts, and something finite is in God: Or if infinite, then three distinct infinite Subsistence; and what's this but to assert three Gods, since none is infinite but God? And on the contrary, there being an inseparability betwixt the Substance and its Subsistence, the Unity of Substance will not admit a Trinity of incommunicable or distinct Subsistences.

T. D. Being ask'd of whom was Christ the express Image, from his alledging that Scripture in the Hebrews; answered, of God's Subsistence, or Manner of Being: From whence two Things in short follow as my Reply, It makes God a Father only by Subsistence, and Christ a Son without a Substance. Besides it's falsly rendred in the Hebrews, since the Greek does not Heb. 1. 3. say but the Character of Substance.

And if he will peruse a farther Discovery of his Error, and explanation of the Matter, let him read Col. 1. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God.

And because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine to the Capacity of the People, compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles, saying, he did not understand how Paul, Peter, and John could be three Persons, and one Apostle, (a most apt Comparison to detect their Doctrine) one— Maddocks, whose Zeal out-stript his Knowledge, bustling hard, as one that had some necessary Matter for the Decision of our Controversie, instead thereof (perhaps to save his Brethren, or show himself) silences our farther controverting of the Principle, by a Syllogistical, but impertinent Reflection upon G. W's. Person. It runs thus, He that Scornfully and reproachfully compares our Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, one in Essence, but three in Persons, to three finite Men, as Paul, Peter, and John, is a Blasphemer. But you G. W. have so done. Ergo A strange Way of Argumentation, to beg what can't be granted him, and take for granted what still remains a Question, viz. That there are three distinct and separate Persons in one Essence: Let them first prove their Trinity, and then charge their Blasphemy: But I must not forget this Person's self-confutation, who to be plainer, called them three He's, and if he can find an He without a Substance, or prove that a Subsistence is any other than the Form of an He, he would do well to justifie himself from the Imputation of Ignorance.

And till their Hypothesis be of better Authority, G. W. neither did, nor does by that Comparison design Men's Invention so much Honour.

For 'tis to be remark'd, that G. W. is no otherwise a Blasphemer, than by drawing direct Consequences from their own Principles, and recharging them upon themselves: So that he did not speak his own Apprehensions by his Comparison, but the Sense of their Assertion; therefore Blasphemer and Blasphemy are their own.

The Trinity of Distinct and Separate Persons, in the unity of Essence, refuted from Scripture.

1 Kings 8.23.
And he said, Lord God, there is no God like unto THEE, To whom then will ye liken ME? Or shall I be equal, saith the Holy ONE? —I am the Lord, and there is NONE else, there is no God besides ME. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy ONE of Israel. I will also praise THEE, O my God; unto THEE will I sing, O Holy ONE of Israel. Jehovah shall be ONE, and his Name ONE.

Isa. 40. 25.
c. 45. 5, 6.
c. 48. 17.
Psal. 71. 22.
Zac. 14. 9.
Mat. 19. 17.
John 17. 3.
Rom. 3. 30.
1 Cor. 8. 6.
Eph. 4. 6.
1 Tim. 2. 5.
Jude ver. 25.

Which with a Cloud of other Testimonies that might be urg'd, evidently demonstrate, that in the Days of the first Covenant, and Prophets, but ONE was the Holy God, and God but that Holy ONE.—Again, And Jesus said unto Him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but ONE, and that is God. And this is Life Eternal, that they might know THEE (Father) the ONLY True God. Seeing it is ONE God that shall justifie. There be Gods many,—but nnto us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all Things. ONE God and Father who is above all Things. For there is ONE God. To the ONLY Wise God be Glory now and ever. From all which I shall lay down this one Assertion, that the Testimonies of Scripture, both under the Law, and since the Gospel Dispensation, declare ONE to be God, and God to be ONE, on which I shall raise this Argument:

continued...

mfblume

09-14-2008, 02:46 PM

If God, as the Scriptures testifie, hath never been declar'd or believ'd, but as the Holy ONE, then will it follow, that God is not an Holy THREE, nor doth subsist in THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES: but the before-cited Scriptures undeniably prove that ONE is God, and God only is that Holy ONE; therefore he can't be divided into, or subsist in an Holy THREE, or THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES—Neither can this receive the least Prejudice from that frequent but impertinent Distinction, that he is ONE in Substance, but THREE in Persons or Subsistences; since God was not declared or believed incompleatly, or without his Subsistence: Nor did he require Homage from his Creatures, as an incompleat or abstracted Being, but as God the Holy ONE: For so he should be manifested and Worshipped without that which was absolutely Necessary to Himself:——So that either the Testimonies of the aforementioned Scriptures are to be believ'd concerning God, that he is intirely and compleatly, not abstractly and distinctly, the Holy ONE, or else their Authority to be denied by these Trinitarians: And on the contrary, if they pretend to credit those Holy Testimonies, they must necessarily conclude their Kind of Trinity a Fiction.

Refuted from Right Reason.

1. If there be three distinct and separate Persons, then three distinct and separate Substances, because every Person is inseparable from its own Substance; and as there is no Person that's not a Substance in common Acceptation among Men, so do the Scriptures plentifully agree herein: And since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their Opinion necessitates them to confess) then unless the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three distinct Nothings, they must be three distinct Substances, and consequently three distinct Gods.

2. It's farther prov'd, if it be consider'd, that either the Divine Persons are finite or infinite; if the first, then something finite is inseparable to the infinite Substance, whereby something finite is in God; if the last, then Three distinct Infinites, Three Omnipotents, Three Eternals, and so Three GODS.

3. If each Person be God, and that God Subsists in three Persons, then in each Person are three Persons or Gods, and from three, they will encrease to nine, and so ad infinitum.

4. But if they shall deny the three Persons, or Subsistences to be infinite, (for so there would unavoidably be three Gods) it will follow that they must be finite, and so the Absurdity is not abated from what it was; for that of one Substance having three Subsistences, is not greater, than that an infinite Being should have three finite Modes of Subsisting. But though that Mode which is finite can't answer to a Substance that's infinite; yet to try if we can make their Principle to consist, let us conceive that three

Persons, which may be finite Separately, make up an infinite conjunctly; however this will follow, that they are no more incommunicable or separate, nor properly Subsistences, but a Subsistence; for the infinite Substance can't find a Bottom or Subsistence in any one or two, therefore joyntly. And here I am also willing to over look finiteness in the Father, Son, and Spirit, which this Doctrine must Suppose.

5. Again, if these three distinct Persons are one, with some one Thing, as they say they are with the God-head, then are not they incommunicable among themselves; but so much the contrary, as to be one in the Place of another: For if that the only God is the Father, and Christ be that only God, then is Christ the Father. So if that one God be the Son, and the Spirit that one God, then is the Spirit the Son, and so round. Nor is it possible to stop, or that it should be otherwise, since if the Divine Nature be inseparable from the three Persons, or communicated to each, and each Person have the whole Divine Nature, then is the Son in the Father, and the Spirit in the Son, unless that the God-head be as incommunicable to the Persons, as they are reported to be amongst themselves; or that the three Persons have distinctly allotted them such a Proportion of the Divine Nature, as it not communicable to each other, which is alike absurd. Much more might be said to manifest the gross Contradiction of this Trinitarian Doctrine, as vulgarly receiv'd; but I must be brief.

Information and Caution.

Before I shall conclude this Head, it's requisite I should inform Thee, Reader, concerning its Original: Thou may'st assure thy self, it's not from the Scriptures, nor Reason, since so expresly repugnant; although all Broachers of their own Inventions strongly endeavour to reconcile them with that Holy Record. Know then, my Friend, 'twas born above three Hundred Years after the Ancient Gospel was declared; and that through the nice Distinctions, and too daring Curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria, who being as hotly opposed by Arrius, their Zeal so reciprocally blew the Fire of Contention, Animosity, and Persecution, till at last they sacrific'd each other to their mutual Revenge.

Thus it was conceived in Ignorance, brought forth and maintain'd by Cruelty; for though he that was strongest, impos'd his Opinion, persecuting the contrary, yet the Scale turning on the Trinitarian side, it has there continued through all the Romish Generations: And notwithstanding it hath obtain'd the Name of Athanasian from Athanasius, (a stiff Man, witness his Carriage towards Constantine the Emperor) because suppos'd to have been most concerned in the framing that Creed in which this Doctrine is asserted; yet have I never seen one Copy void of a Suspicion, rather to have been the Results of Popish School-Men; which I could render more perspicuous, did not Brevity necessitate me to an Omission.

Be therefore caution'd, Reader, not to embrace the Determination of prejudic'd Councils, for Evangelical Doctrine; which the Scriptures bear no certain Testimony to; neither was believ'd by the primitive Saints, or thus stated by any I have read of in the first, second, or third Centuries; particularly Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, with many others who appear wholly foreign to the Matter in Controversie.—But seeing that private Spirits, and those none of the most ingenious, have been the Parents and Guardians of this so generally receiv'd Doctrine; let the Time past suffice, and be admonish'd to apply thy Mind unto that Light and Grace which brings Salvation; that by Obedience thereunto, those Mists Tradition hath cast before thy Eyes, may be expel'd, and thou receive a certain Knowledge of that God, whom to know is Life Eternal, not to be divided, but ONE pure intire and eternal Being; who in the Fulness of Time sent forth his Son, as the true Light which enlightneth every Man; that whosoever follow'd him (the Light) might be translated from the dark Notions, and vain Conversations of Men, to this Holy Light, in which only sound Judgment and Eternal Life are obtainable: Who so many Hundred Years since, in Person testified the Virtue of it, and has communicated unto all such a Proportion, as may enable them to follow his Example.

mizpeh

09-14-2008, 02:50 PM

The whole writing is here: http://mikeblume.com/sandyfoundation.htm

Penn was put in the Tower of London for this writing, and released due to his extreme Christian example. It is a ONENESS writing!

I read most of this before and it sounded like he was a Biblical Unitarian to me.

mfblume

09-14-2008, 03:02 PM

I read most of this before and it sounded like he was a Biblical Unitarian to me.

He said: "...Must I deny his Divinity because I justly reject the Popish School Personality? It is manifest, then, ...that though I may deny the Trinity of separate persons in one Godhead, yet I do not consequentially deny the Deity of Jesus Christ."

It looks like oneness to me. Any reasons for your assertion?

mfblume

09-14-2008, 03:09 PM

I found a writing remarking of Penn and quoting him saying that Penn believed in the deity of Jesus as SABELLIUS DID.

http://books.google.com/books?id=334QAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA468&lpg=PA468&dq=%22yet+I+do+not+consequentially+deny+the+Deity+ of+Jesus+Christ%22&source=web&ots=1PefQpQ-X2&sig=pWC-sSeMCTmDhmYI-qe8plmoyGM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result