(revised 11/21/13)
In recent years I have been baffled by Evangelical Friends who claim Quaker founder George Fox was a born again, biblically sound man of God. For example, in the Evangelical Friends textbook The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, Walter R. Williams touts George Fox as a godly man, omitting his heretical teachings.
Yet many writers outside of Quakerdom have exposed George Fox for what he truly was – a heretic. After researching George Fox and the early Quaker movement, I can only conclude that Fox was not only unregenerate (unsaved), but a Gnostic, a “Christian” mystic, and a “Christian” universalist. There were many born again, biblically sound Christians and churches nearby in Fox’s day. Yet he chose to reject them, teaching instead “the Inward (or Inner) Light”, “the light of Christ in every man.” No truly born again Christian would accept this teaching as biblical.
Early Quakers did not view themselves as a Protestant movement, but as “primitive Christianity revived.” Conversely, many biblically sound Christian historians do not even view the Quaker movement as a Protestant movement, it is so heretical. I would even go so far as to use the phrase “the Quaker cult”.
So it should come as no surprise that recent info has been uncovered, exposing George Fox as even more heretical/occultic than previously thought. I have provided the most pertinent excerpt below. Click here for the original source of this excerpt – a blog by Steven Davison. (Ironically, this shocking info has been revealed by Davison, a liberal Quaker, not an Evangelical Friend.) I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets]:
“… I had always believed that Fox would never have countenanced the vaguely neo-Gnostic meaning for ‘that of God’ that is so common among us nowadays—namely, that there is some aspect of the divine in the human, a divine spark, as the neo-Platonists put it. Now it seems that George Fox was some kind of ‘Gnostic’, after all. That he did believe—or rather, that he had experienced in his visions of 1647 (“There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition”) and 1648 (“I was brought up in the spirit through the flaming sword into the paradise of God”)—that he had experienced his own nature to be the “flesh and blood” of Christ, not separate or distinct from the substance of God, that “the light”, the “seed”, which all humans possessed, was “of God”, that is, the very substance of Christ’s heavenly body. That “the light” was not just a teacher or revealer or convincer/convictor, but that it was ‘metaphysical’ in its effect, raising up “the first body”, the paradisiacal body that was before the fall. That this was the nature of salvation in Christ: to shed the inner, ‘carnal’ body that could sin, and to be inhabited instead, body and spirit, by the immaterial, heavenly body of Christ himself, so as to partake of his power and authority and even perfection. That this indeed was the original foundation for Quaker ‘perfectionism’, the belief that one could live without sin. The authors and the works that make these assertions (Glen D. Reynolds, Richard Bailey, Rosemary Moore) are listed at the end of this post.
I could feel a little better about my ignorance of Fox’s understanding of the light because these authors and a couple of others [I wish this writer had named the additional authors] seem to have uncovered a deliberate effort on the part of early Friends to excise this aspect of Fox’s and early Friends’ theology from public record. They name, especially, Thomas Ellwood, the first editor of Fox’s journal, and William Penn, but even including Fox himself, to some degree. Soon after the Naylor affair in 1656, but especially after the Restoration, these editors did what they could to hide, deny, recast or otherwise explain away this Gnostic bent in order to avoid charges of blasphemy and tone down Quaker rhetoric in the face of the persecutions.”
Bibliography
Richard Bailey, New Light on George Fox and Early Quakerism: The Making and Unmaking of a God.
– Amazon description: “This study is a discussion about Fox’s meaning of the “inner light”. It argues that Fox’s inner light was the celestial Christ who inhabited and divinized the believer. Fox argued for a celestial inhabitation of the believer that was almost corporeal. This helps explain Fox’s thaumaturgical powers; the exalted language used among early Quakers, especially toward Fox; and the blasphemy trials and the Nayler incident. These belong at the very centre of early Quakerism, and are the logical result of the core elements of Fox’s teaching. His notion of celestial flesh was one of the greatest challenges to Christian orthodoxy to appear in Christian history and it may be compared to Jesus’ own challenge to Orthodox Judaism or the appearance of the high heresies of the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Jesus. Early Quakerism, as a result, was the most charismatic sect to appear since the days of the early Church, or at least since the era of Montanism.”
Rosemary Moore, The Light in Their Consciences: Early Quakers in Britain 1646-1666.
Glen D. Reynolds, “George Fox and Christian Gnosis”, readable online, Chapter 7 [starts on p. 99] in The Creation of Quaker Theory: New Perspectives, Pink Dandelion, editor. [Other chapters also provide clues regarding Fox’s Gnostic views, and may be viewable online via this link.] [Note – I corrected this bibliographic info; the original blog listed the incorrect chapter title.]
Glen D. Reynolds, Was George Fox a Gnostic? An Examination of Foxian Theology from a Valentinian Gnostic Perspective
– Amazon description: “The combined effect of observations made by John Owen (Puritan Vice-chancellor of Oxford University) in tracts published in 1655 and 1679 was that Quaker theology renewed aspects of Gnosticism, a theology interpreted by patristic commentators as Christian heresy. This monograph argues that George Fox’s theological message (and in particular, his interpretation of the concept of revelatory Light) incorporated a remarkably similar soteriology and realised eschatology to that found in Valentinian Christian Gnosticism.
FOR FURTHER READING
Online version of George Fox’s autobiography – read this using discernment – nonevangelical (nonchristian) Quakers including George Fox himself were/are adept at using “Christianese” language. Note that the Introduction is by Rufus M. Jones. Jones was a liberal “Christian universalist” Quaker – yet many Evangelical Friends have fallen for Jones’ statements that George Fox was a born again Christian.
Many thanks for this extra information. I can now add it to my own critcism of Quakerism. Excellent work!
Dr K B Napier, Bible Theology Ministries.
And thank you Dr. Napier. I appreciate your articles as well, at http://www.christiandoctrine.com. God bless you – Dave
Very good work. I myself had suspected that the Inner Light teaching was connected to the ancient view of Gnosis. What is so unique is how influential Quakerism was on the formation of early Protestantism, and how far Evangelical Christians have fallen back into the pit of Romanism. I always like George Fox, now even more so!
Interesting comments, Thomas. Although I’m a bit confused where you’re coming from theologically. I wrote the blog in opposition to George Fox. Did you get the impression I was favoring him? … I’m planning to peruse your blogs, to get a better feel for where you’re coming from. God bless you – Dave
Don’t see anything at all here which ties Fox to gnosticism as traditionally known (gnosticism denied the physical Jesus, which Fox certainly never did), nor anything at all to indicate he was not a devoted Christian. I’m inclined to think it is the author here who is a heretic member of a cult, not George Fox. I think there may be some questionable beliefs by Fox, but they are not mentioned in this essay.
Bill, thanks for the comments. I’m going to break down my response into several sections.
First off, there is more to traditional Gnosticism than just denying the physical Jesus. Since Fox did not deny this, he obviously was not 100% Gnostic (whatever that is), but taught certain Gnostic-like concepts. Question – how are you defining “traditional” Gnosticism? There are many different groups that teach Gnostic or Gnostic-like concepts. Do none of them teach a concept of “God in every man” or “that of Christ in every man”? I would think the New Age concept of “Christ consciousness” and “the cosmic Christ” is very similar to Fox’s concept of “that of Christ in every man”.
Second, you said there was “nor anything at all to indicate he [Fox] was not a devoted Christian.” I noticed you did not use the term “born again Christian”. Do you believe Fox was a born again Christian? I’ve never met a truly born again Christian who believes in the concept of “that of Christ in every man”.
Now to this comment: “I’m inclined to think it is the author here who is a heretic member of a cult, not George Fox.” To me this seems like a lose-lose argument. Yes, it seems that the blog author favors Gnostics, and is trying to prove George Fox was a Gnostic. A number of Gnostics claim that Fox taught some Gnostic concepts. But, a number of critics of Fox also claim that Fox taught some Gnostic concepts. Are both sides wrong? Since both sides claim Fox taught some Gnostic concepts, where is the documentation that Fox did NOT teach any Gnostic concepts?
Finally to your comment: “I think there may be some questionable beliefs by Fox, but they are not mentioned in this essay.” I would very interested in hearing what beliefs of Fox you agree are questionable. Since my Quaker ancestry on both sides of my family goes WAY back, I am always very interested in discussing this history of Quakerism including Fox and the early Quakers.
I would also be interested in hearing what your belief system is. Do you belong to one of the Friends denominations? If so, which one? In any case, I appreciate your interest in the Quakers and your discussion of George Fox. God bless you – Dave
“The true Light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.” John 1:9 This is the concept that Fox expressed in slightly different words. Are you saying that John was a Gnostic and not a true Christian? John has been called the Quaker gospel because so much emphasized by Quakers is explicit in John. But it’s in every church’s canon. I don’t understand why you reject it. The early Quakers said they were willing to have all of their doctrines tested by the scripture.
Please stop trying to force fit the Gospel of Jesus Christ into your ideology. It doesn’t fit.
I will pray for your conversion to the Gospel.
Bill, it seems our comments are “crossing in the mail” so to speak. I just lengthened my previous reply – my additions included some questions I hope you feel comfortable answering. Now to your most recent comment. The Quaker concept of the Inner Light is vastly different from what born again Protestant pastors and theologians teach. We do not believe that the Light of Christ is literally within every man, nor that this Quaker concept even appears in John Chapter 1.
Here’s how my Bible (the King James Bible) words John 1:9 “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” Seems to me this verse is describing the light as coming from OUTSIDE every man, shining upon him, not dwelling WITHIN every man. What Bible version did you quote John 1:9 from? Your quote seems to convey a very different interpretation of this verse. What does the term “enlighten” mean here? Illuminate? Give revelation? Convict? Save? Indwell?
It seems to me that George Fox taught the INDWELLING of Christ Himself in every man, i.e. “that of Christ in every man.” And he taught that by listening to that Light already within them that every person could come to know Christ. Is that how you interpret John 1:9? This is vastly different from what born again Protestants teach. We teach that Christ came into the world to make salvation available to every person (although only those who repent of sin and accept this offer made to all will be saved, thus going to Heaven and avoiding eternal torment). But Christ does not already dwell in all persons (this would have to include Buddhists, Hindus, voodoo practitioners, New Agers, Satanists, atheists, etc. etc. – i.e. literally all persons saved and unsaved). Christ comes from outside so to speak. Picture Christ “knocking at our heart’s door”. To be theologically correct, it is actually the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, “knocking on our heart’s door”, convicting us sinners of sin, calling us to repent of sin, turn over our lives to Christ and accept Christ as our Saviour. I would concede that some Evangelical Friends today view “that of Christ in every man” as “the Holy Spirit”. But this I find theologically impossible, since born again Protestants teach that the Holy Spirit does not come to indwell a person until after he or she has become born again.
There are born again Protestant articles out there that explain my interpretation of John 1:9 far better and in much more detail than I have done. I’m Googling to find such articles, and hope to post links here when I locate them.
Regarding your post, you seem pretty adamant that the Gospel of Christ and of salvation fits the Quaker ideology. Not to be rude, but certainly you’re aware that church history (particularly from the Reformation on) would disagree with George Fox’s interpretation of John 1:9. The Baptists, the Wesleyans, the Calvinists, etc. etc. – none of them would say that the Quaker interpretation of John 1:9 is in every church’s canon. And none of them would say they’re trying to force fit the [Quaker] Gospel of Jesus Christ into their ideology. Rather, they would reject the Quaker interpretation of John 1:9 as outright heresy.
I’m not trying to be mean or argumentative here. I’m just trying to share the theological and historical facts as I see them. I hope to hear back from you if you wish, for a continuing constructive dialogue. Either way, whether you wish to respond or not, God bless you. It’s been a joy corresponding about George Fox and the early Quakers. God bless you Bill – Dave
I’m interested in what the author makes of proverbs 20:27. “The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching the inward parts”. Doesn’t that seem to teach an inner light? Presumably you accept that we still have within us the breath of God that gave Adam life? Or do you believe this breath was withdrawn at the fall? If so how do you understand the quote from Proverbs? I don’t think the early Quakers were either ignorant or disbelieving of the passages that teach the Holy spirit comes to dwell in believers at regeneration. You can correct me if I’m wrong but I read them as saying we all have the breath of God that sustains us and acts as the candle of the Lord but this breath is like a separated droplet of the river that is called the Holy spirit. At regeneration that droplet is rejoined to the river when the Holy spirit comes to dwell in our hearts. I’m not saying Fox wasn’t a heretic, I’m just not sure the doctrine of the inner light is a good example.
Good questions, Giles. Here is a link to a number of commentaries on Prov. 21:27: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/20-27.htm And here is Prov. 21:27 in various Bible versions: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/20-27.htm Personally, I view this verse as describing man’s conscience, man’s sense of right and wrong. All mankind is hardwired, so to speak, to know murder is wrong, and lying, and stealing, and adultery, and so on. This in no way means God or Christ or the Holy Spirit indwells unregenerate sinners. It simply means that we are created in God’s image, the only species with a sense of right and wrong, with souls which someday – along with our resurrected bodies – will spend eternity either in God’s presence or in the Lake of Fire.
The Quakers viewed the Inner Light, that of Christ in every man, in a far different way. They believed that Christ as an external being – different than the conscience of man himself – dwells mysteriously in every person, even those who are unregenerate. Interestingly, they referred to “that of Christ in every man”, not “that of the Holy Spirit in every man”… Further complicating things, is the fact that Quakers themselves defined the Inner Light in many different ways. And there is no consensus on how George Fox, William Barclay and other early Quakers defined the term.
To summarize: if, as most Quakers do, we define the teaching of the Inner Light as “that of Christ in every man”, then the teaching is indeed heretical. The fact is, God in no way indwells a person until they have become born again. Hope that makes sense. Thanks again for your great comments and questions, Giles – although I’m not sure how well I answered them 🙂 God bless you – Dave
Thank you. I appreciate your tone in responding to questions. I haven’t read the linked commentary yet but my reading is like yours. The conscience is a light from God. It’s not the indwelling Holy spirit. As you say there is some obscurity as to what the first Quakers believed. I tried reading Fox’s journal. He struck me as self righteous and appears to have taught perfectionism which I can’t swallow even in a watered down form.
Barclay’s apology is fascinating though. As I remember he attempts to prove “that of God” (maybe he said Christ as you suggest) from the passages Calvinists (and indeed Arminians) use to prove total depravity. That is he takes those passages and notes that read literally they prove actual total depravity (ie maximal depravity) and not merely orthodox “total depravity” which both Calvinists and Arminians distinguish from unadulterated wickedness. He then asks where the relative goodness that even Calvinists acknowledge in the unregenerate comes from. It can’t be from ourselves, if we take the depravity texts literally. Therefore it must be from that of God within us. Thus he proves, to his own satisfaction at least, the doctrine of “that of God/Christ in every man” from the texts typically used to prove the polar opposite, “total depravity”. Not sure what to make of that but it is certainly ingenious.
As I say though it’s actually the perfectionism that troubles me most, likewise with Wesley who I greatly admire. I don’t know your stance on that though, whether you are Wesleyan, Calvinist or whatever. I’m a Calviminian, agreeing with bits of both systems.
Again, great comments Giles. BTW I’m no expert on Fox or Barclay, but from what I read it seems Fox was very troubled by the state of the lost, those who had never heard the gospel. It seems to me Fox came up with the Inner Light teaching, “that of Christ in every man”, to rationalize that every human being could become a Christian even if they never heard the gospel message.
As far as the writings of Fox, Barclay, Wesley, etc. you seem more familiar with them than I. I’ve got some reading and studying to do…
Regarding my doctrinal stance, I have an “old fashioned Wesleyan Holiness” background, but also like some of the teachings of the Conservative Holiness Movement, Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, Calvinists, etc. God bless you.
Thank you. As I say I admire Wesley greatly, notwithstanding my difficulties with one or two of his teachings. Best Wishes.
Good catch on the proper Quaker phrase, Giles. I Googled “that of God in every man”. That is the phrase used, NOT “that of Christ in every man”. Yet Quakers do mention Christ as well. The Wiki article on “Inner Light” mentions the terms “Light of Christ”, “Christ within”, etc. … Regarding Calvin, Wesley, etc. it sounds like we’re on the same page. I admire all the great born again leaders of the Reformation era and later, even with their flaws and theological differences. Later – God bless.
Wesley, while he had differences with the Quakers, thought Fox to have been the only human (outside of Christ) to have achieved perfection.
Bill, thanks for your comments. I do have a question about this comment of yours: “Wesley, while he had differences with the Quakers, thought Fox to have been the only human (outside of Christ) to have achieved perfection.” Personally, from what I’ve read elsewhere (see my link below), that view sounds out of character for John Wesley. I would be interested in reading historical primary source documents where Wesley stated this view of Fox. Do you have a link to such statements by Wesley?
In this blog, I quoted a number of statements by Wesley regarding George Fox and the Quakers: https://davemosher.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/john-wesley-condemns-heresies-of-george-fox-and-the-quakers/ While many of Wesley’s comments were critical, Wesley stopped short of calling Fox and the Quakers outright heretics. In fact, Wesley viewed Fox and the Quakers as Christians, albeit erroneous in some of their teachings. Thanks again for your comments Bill. God bless you – Dave
I can’t quickly find the reference. I have not done research into original documents. This is something I heard long ago. I believe it was from a scholar, but I don’t recall exactly where I heard it.
Interesting, Bill. I did not realize the Quakers emphasized perfection. I have not yet read the following paper, which compares Wesleyan perfection with Quaker perfection: http://docslide.us/documents/wesleyan-and-quaker-perfectionism.html John Wesley’s comment about George Fox may be in this paper.
I don’t have a primary source for this but I was told by a Methodist minister, who learnt it in training, that Wesley believed Fletcher of Madeley had attained perfection seven times but lost it again. So he might have believed Fox attained it and kept it. He didn’t think “perfection” made error impossible so it’s possible he believed Fox made theological errors but also attained perfect love. Wesley never claimed to have ever attained perfection himself as far as I am aware. As I say this is the bit of both Methodism and Quakerism (and Salvation Army etc) that I dissent from. I’d be interested in your take on perfectionism. And indeed Bill’s who I take to be a Quaker?
Good points, Giles. I know the Wesleyan Holiness movement I grew up in (and still feel close to) held for the most part to Christian perfection. At this point I personally do not believe it is possible to reach “Christian perfection” in this life. I DO think we can have victorious Christian lives, having victory over sin through the power of the Holy Spirit. But we will still stumble and give in to temptation and sin from time to time. On this issue I would thus be more aligned with the Keswick (Higher Life) movement: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Life_movement. BTW, I’ve spelled out my Doctrinal Statement here: https://davemosher.wordpress.com/about/
Aha! A third way. I like it! Wesley’s belief doesn’t bother me too much as he thought perfection almost impossible, and never claimed it for himself. I can deal with the idea it may be theoretically possible (in order for us to say sin is a choice) but I am bothered when you have people claiming to be perfect themselves. I can’t help thinking they must be aiming too low or overestimating how high they have reached. At the same time what’s the point of a faith that claims to make people better if it doesnt actually make people better? I was reared in the Church of England, which is very diverse but apparently Calvinist in its official theology, though I didn’t know that till last year. So I absorbed the idea that even our noblest deeds fall short of the ideal, not realising for a long time that some disagree.
I was impressed by the film “Schindler’s list” where Oscar Schindler (not sure if he was a Christian, he was very wordly in some ways) says at the end of the war in which he has liquidated his entire fortune apart from his car to save the Jews “I could have sold the car, I could have saved one more life!”. That’s kind of how I view it. You can always aim higher. Though some would hold that it’s a sin just to see a secular movie like Schindler’s List so it’s hard to judge our own level of holiness given such disagreements.
Thanks for sharing.
A problem with dialoging about this issue is the language. I think we get hung up on the meaning of “perfect” today and tend to interpret it as being absolutely without any flaw. I don’t know a lot about the Wesleyan tradition, but in the Quaker tradition I don’t think that was the understanding of it. F.C. Grant talks about is as “upright and sincere, having wholeness and integrity.” (Grant was an Episcopal priest as well as a theologian, not either a Wesleyan or a Quaker.)
Eugene Peterson renders Matthew 5:48, the “be ye perfect” text quite differently than conventional translations:
“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.”
The Common English Bible uses “complete” instead of “perfect.”
If we viewed this matter in the light of the wording in those translations, I think we would have a lot less trouble with it.
If I may interject something here, Bill. I have a serious problem with Eugene Peterson and his paraphrase The Message. His paraphrase shows his postmodern “kingdom now” view and his liberal social gospel message. And I don’t want to sound rude or overbearing here, but the Common English Bible version you referenced is touted by mainline/liberal denominations in the National Council of Churches (as is the NRSV version). Just saying. Do you view the Message, the CEB and the NRSV as your favorite versions? Just curious to see where you’re coming from – no hard feelings I hope – I greatly appreciate your comments and kind conversation.
In the Bible when Jesus says “be ye perfect”, I would think this has to include the idea of being righteous before God now and on Judgment Day. None of us are literally perfect, there is none perfect no not one, all our righteousness is as filthy rags. But for those who repent of their sins, accept Christ as Saviour and thus become born again, God sees us in a sense as “perfect”. Not because we are literally perfect, but because God sees His perfect Son Jesus Christ standing in our place on Judgment Day, taking the eternal penalty for our sins. I found this article, which discusses how God will view us on Judgment Day as perfect, holy and righteous because of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/04/25/what-does-righteousness-mean-in-the-bible-a-christian-study/
If I can interject in your interjection (!) I did notice you are a KJV only man. And in fact I can accept that the KJV was in some sense (though not the same sense as the autographs) inspired. It is certainly beautiful and the foundation (with Shakespeare) of English literature. With respect to other translations, the NIV gets my goat and The Message isn’t even a translation. Other than the KJV I prefer ultra literal translations. So called “thought for thought” translations depend on guessing God’s thought. I’d rather read his word and guess his thoughts for myself.
There really is no such thing as a literal translation. It really doesn’t make much sense if you treat each word independently. And very often it is simply impossible. Languages are so different that many Hebrew and Greek words can’t really be directly translated into English. You have to make a choice among inadequate possibilities for putting it into English.
There are dangers in all the ways people use to put scripture into other than the original languages. More conservative Christians focus on the dangers of the less literal approaches, which are real, but tend to ignore those of the more literal approaches. Even in the most literal, the faith understanding of the translator colors the choices made in translation. It is impossible to have a totally objective translation.
If relying on translations, when trying to immerse oneself in a passage it is advisable to read it in several translations. I like the feature of Bible Gateway where you can look things up and see it in 5 different translations. I find that illuminating. The Amplified Bible is also helpful because it offers alternative ways of translating within the verses.
Also I find I can get deadened to what is in a passage when reading it in a very familiar translation. I find The Message very useful in that it can make passages very fresh and cause me to think more deeply about them. Yes, you have to consider whether Peterson has really captured it. I don’t think he always does, but generally I think he has a good feel for what the text was probably intended to convey.
Bill, biblegateway.com is one of my favorites also. I also like biblehub.com. Currently biblehub.com has 19 Bible versions that can be read in parallel (one verse at a time). I also like that biblehub.com currently has 50 Bible commentaries online. The website is confusing though (I haven’t figured out all the tabs at the top of the website yet)…
Bill (and Giles), I was just thinking this too – namely that in any Bible translation (even the KJV), the translators are forced to make some judgment calls and inevitably interpret numerous passages in the light of their own doctrinal stance. As Giles pointed out, I prefer the KJV – and I would have to say I do like how the KJV lines up with the doctrine of the Reformers. I’m no expert on history, but I see from the Wikipedia article on the King James Bible that it was translated for the Church of England. An interesting coincidence, I think, that we are discussing this now since Giles shared a bit ago that his background is in the Church of England.
BTW, regarding ultra-literal translations, I mentioned on my Doctrinal Statement page that I like Young’s Literal Translation of the KJV for Bible study. It does make for difficult reading, but I settle for it for now, since I’m not proficient at Greek and never learned Hebrew.
Re the KJV, I don’t think the translators were deliberately conforming their work to Reformed theology. If they had they would have translated 1 Peter 4:6 the same way as the NIV as I doubt even one of them held to post mortem salvation (though Luther did entertain it at one point). I’m not saying their theology had no influence at all but I think honesty came first.
Yes, I try to compare many translations and read up on the arguments about the Greek etc and the use of words in contemporary literature. But there’s just no excuse for the kind of ideological translation used by the NIV. So for example 1 Peter 4:6 where it translates “for this reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead”. The translators admitted the word “now” isn’t in the Greek but they put it there on the basis of an appeal to Hebrews 9:27 and the concern that without that word some might take the passage to refer to post mortem salvation. Regardless of one’s view on that issue one can’t just start inserting stuff that isn’t in the text on the basis of one’s reading of another passage. Why not alter Hebrews 9:27 to make it allow for post mortem salvation on the basis of 1 Peter 4:6? I take your point that literal may not always be best, but ideological translation to exclude in the English interpretations that are available in the Greek is just plain dishonest in my view.
Thank you. That kind of “perfectionism” I have no issue with. But there really are people who claim to be sinless. In fact I knew one delightful woman, entirely sane to all appearances and a professing Christian who claimed never to have sinned in her life (not merely after regeneration but before, though the notion of regeneration becomes moot in such a case). I didn’t know what to say to her. And one guy I corresponded with over the net belonged to an entire church who believed themselves sinless.
Thanks for the reference. It doesn’t mention the Wesley comment I heard about. But it is a good paper.
Note that Barclay was a well trained theologian.
I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. I believe he is also generally accepted as more orthodox than Fox. I read a Quaker bemoaning that Barclay had sanded off the rough edges of Fox’s teaching to win greater acceptability.