Who's Standing In the Gap?

Comment by Earlon William (Bill) Carsley on 3rdMo. 25, 2015 at 1:15

Allan, thank you for sharing these thoughts.  You've packed a lot in here, and it will take me some time to absorb it all!  My sense is that we are not really that far apart on the essentials, although there are some differences.  One question that does come immediately to mind... if you could clarify your view on it for me I'd appreciate it.

What about Paul's discussion, in 1 Corinthians 11, of the communal meal which he said should be celebrated "until He comes"?  As you know, it's on this basis that most Christians celebrate a material eucharist to this day - because in their view Christ still has not come. You seem to be saying that Fox would view Pentecost as the "coming" of Christ in Spirit which makes a material eucharist unnecessary.  But if that is true, then Paul was mistaken to practice the communal supper in his day, some 25 years after Pentecost.  Yet Paul does clearly state that the practice was valid then, and would continue to be valid until the coming of Christ (sometime still in his future).  How do you account for the contradiction that this poses?  My interpretation of Fox's statement, as outlined in this post, accounts for both Fox's view of the annulling of the material "supper" at Christ's coming (at the Revelation to John) and the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. I don't see how your explanation of Fox's view of Christ's coming can reconcile the two. Thank you, Allan.

Comment by Ellis Hein on 3rdMo. 25, 2015 at 12:23

Bill,

I have been asking questions both to gain understanding of what you are talking about and to see where you are taking these ideas. You may want to tell me you haven't gotten to where you are taking these ideas. But what I am seeing is not anything that enhances the gospel. I do not see that preterism makes the everlasting gospel one bit more accessible to modern Christianity. Fox does not need any extra Biblical undergirding.

There is an eye, which in seeing sees not. There is an ear, which in hearing hears not. There is a heart that in perceiving understands not. This eye, ear, and heart must be made blind, deaf, and hard before the the one having that eye, ear, and heart turns from them to that sight that can receive the light of Christ, to that yearning that can only be satisfied by the voice of Christ, and to that heart that perceives the coming of the kingdom like a thief in the night, without expected signs and wonders. This was the effect of the early Quaker gospel. It caused one (maybe Anthony Pearson or maybe Alexander Parker, I'll have to look it up) after an encounter with Fox to write in a letter, “Woe is me for my faith is undone,” or words to that effect. He went on to state that all his attainments in religion were just high-flown notions, devoid of life. Edward Burrrough wrote of how they ceased from all men's words and from their own words and from all their own practices in religion zealously performed in the past that they might wait in silence to experience the Word of God to beat down and burn up all that was contrary to God. Fox's commission was to bring men off from all the world's religions, which are in vain, and from man-made churches that they might come to the Church in God of which Christ is the head. It is this confrontation with the living Christ that will cause people to hear and understand the gospel preached by the apostles, by the early Friends, and rising again in this day. “If you had stood in my council,” said the Lord through Jeremiah to the prophets who ran but were not sent, “You would have announced my words to the people and turned them from their wickedness.” It is Christ whom they must hear in all things if they are to have any part in the people of God.

The debate about whether or not Jesus' return occurred at the time of the Revelation to John adds nothing to the gospel. What is going to make the difference to the people to whom you are sent is whether or not you are living in that same life and power that made the prophets to be prophets and the apostles to be the apostles. Are you bringing people into real encounter with the living Christ who is their present teacher? This is the question that needs to be uppermost in your mind.

Christ is the light of the world. He is the truth and the life. He is the way to the Father. Whenever and wherever anyone has come into the light, the life and the truth; whenever and wherever anyone has come to the Father, there is the coming of Christ.

Now, it seems necessary to fill you in on my background. You are making some assumptions that are not true. I grew up in an evangelical church, which having the name “Friends” attached still did not know anything about Fox or other early Friends. They were typical protestants adhering to such things as the Bible being the Word of God and our primary authority. One side of my family was part of the Mennonite migration out of Russia into central Kansas in the 1800s. There was nothing in either of those traditions to prepare my heart for receiving the truth of what Fox and the early Friends taught. But there was one thing I had from my earliest memories and that was a taste of life and a hunger after that life. Because of that taste for life I was able to understand that many things I was being taught were not the truth. They did not lead to the life for which I hungered. When I was caught up in my own selfish ends, the yearning after life drew me back. I came across a Rufus Jones edition of Fox's Journal when a freshman in college. Even though Rufus Jones made a mess of Fox's journal, I caught a glimpse of that same life that I had known since a young child. And in the writings of Barclay's Apology (modern English) I found a declaration of that same life. In reading these two works I discovered a people who experienced the living reality of Christ as the head of his church who is actively present in the midst of those who gather to hear Him. My experience of church life had been of a human institution with Christ as a figure head. Later, I have had opportunity to read the works of other early Friends. The power behind the gospel they preached and that must be preached again today is Christ himself. He is the gospel. He is the covenant. He is to be experienced in all his offices by his people who gather in His name.

If you have it upon your heart to preach this everlasting gospel to the inhabitants of the Earth, if you are given a word from the Lord and sent to a particular work, you will reach to that life in people that has lain dormant and buried. It is this life that, rising up in the heart, will convict and convince them of the everlasting truth. This is what it means to be a minister of Christ.

Comment by Allan Halton on 3rdMo. 25, 2015 at 15:37

Bill, in response to your question, I have not been able to find in Fox’s writings any comment on John 14:18—“I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.”  (If anyone can direct me to where I can find any comments he’s made on this I’d be glad to hear of it.)  I do find several places in His “Works” where he speaks of the Spirit of God, and the Holy Ghost, and the Comforter, and the importance of Spirit baptism in the context of John the Baptist’s words in Matthew Ch. 3, but no direct statements about Pentecost. 

 

So I am not saying that Fox considered Pentecost the parousia.  (Did you misunderstand me on that?)  From what you have said about John’s vision in Rev. Ch. One, it appears that he felt this was the parousia.

 

Pentecost does not do away with “the Lord’s supper,” for, as you said, Paul considered the communal meal still valid after Pentecost—and after he himself had received his own Pentecost as recorded in Acts 9:17.

 

And I don’t accept that Christ’s invitation to the Laodicean church to sup with Him, and He with them, is grounds for doing away the communal supper, either.  For one thing, it’s not clear to me that the appearance of Christ to John in Revelation Chapter One was the Parousia.  John called it a prophecy (Rev. 1:3).  When it is fulfilled, I believe it certainly is the Parousia, just as when the transfiguration vision (Jesus called it a vision, Mt. 17:9) is fulfilled, it is the Parousia, the “power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pt. 1:16).  I certainly think these are under way, but are not yet fulfilled.  In order for the parousia to be fulfilled, those who hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches become intimately involved in the Parousia, just as Paul taught the Thessalonians—that the day would come when Christ would come “to be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believed” (2 Thes. 1:10). That is the Parousia, and it had not taken place in the days of Paul and John, as we see in John’s record of the seven churches of Asia.  There was still a lot of work to be done (and still remains to be done) to bring forth churches that are perfectly one with that Man John saw in The Revelation.  It is through such churches that the Parousia comes forth.

 

So, what did Christ have in mind with regard to the church of Laodicea?  He was simply saying to this backslidden church that He was not in their midst, He was outside, yet standing at the door knocking and hoping to be invited in.  He said, “If you open the door and invite Me in, I will come in and sup with you.  We will have fellowship together.  I will sup with you, I will partake of what’s “on your plate.”  And you can sup with Me—partake of what’s on “My plate.”  I don’t think it’s right to read into this that He is replacing the outward ordinance of the Lord’s supper with something spiritual. 

      

The Quakers and the Salvation Army are two groups that did away with the outward observances of water baptism and communion.   But the New Covenant apostles taught that both of these are still valid facets of truth.  The apostles did not teach that Spirit baptism replaced water baptism, and they didn’t teach that the fellowship of the Spirit replaced the bread and the wine of the New Covenant supper.  Granted that both of these outward ordinances had become mere ritual in many churches back then (as also today), and that is likely why the Quakers and the Salvation Army dispensed with them in their day.  But this moves away from apostolic revelation, and so is not grounds for us to do the same.  Personally I feel that water baptism can be greatly elevated by sensitivity to the Spirit of God, and so can the New Covenant meal.  In the days of the early church it was observed as part of a meal among brethren, but because of the Lordship of the Spirit in their lives it was far more than a mere outward observance.

 

That is what it must be to us.  The breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup in no way suffices apart from our communion, our fellowship, in the blood of Christ and the broken body of Christ. The Lord’s supper is meant to be spiritual—which is the very thing Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians Ch. 11, and he did not advise them that they were no longer to partake of the bread and the wine but only in a spiritual sense. 

 

Christ said He would no more eat of the Passover supper “till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 22:16).  He said also He would not drink of the fruit of the vine “until the day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God” (Mt. 26:29).  So we have the privilege of sitting down with Him at His table in His kingdom and partaking of these with Him now.   At the same time, Paul, who was in the kingdom of God and went everywhere preaching the kingdom of God (and this before John’s vision in Rev. Ch. One) taught that the bread and the wine of the Lord’s supper were to be observed, as I have already pointed out. 

 

So, personally I think it wise to do both of these as led by the Spirit, anticipating an enlarging of my understanding of the Kingdom and coming (Parousia) of Jesus Christ.  For, as I said, the New Covenant writers who had received the Spirit at Pentecost still anticipated and wrote about a coming Parousia. (See list of scriptures in previous post.)  So it cannot be said that in any sense of fullness, Pentecost is the Parousia.  But it is certainly a “coming” that sadly has been overlooked, even missed, by much of Christendom.

 

Am I suggesting that George Fox was wrong in teaching that these were no longer to be observed—water baptism and the Lord’s supper?  Let me say that I have the greatest respect for that man, and have learned much from him.  I rejoice for the day that he crossed my path.  But I dare not take him as my Sun, my Star.  That I reserve for Christ alone, as Fox Himself did.  So if there is any area where I am not clear that Fox is seeing that Sun, that Star, my commitment must be not to Fox, but to Christ my Sun, my Star.   

 

And if any have greater light on these matters than I have, and can convince me it comes from my Sun, my Star, I am happy to receive it.

 

 

Comment by Rebecca Hein on 3rdMo. 25, 2015 at 18:23

Dear Bill,

It seems to me pointless to debate when the “Second Coming” occurred. That issue is a sidetrack and a distraction from the most important reality we face: Christ is present and speaking to us now, and our job is to listen.

Imagine how ludicrous it would be if a group of people held a dinner party and invited a special guest to sup with them and speak to them, and then, after that guest arrived and was speaking, they were all talking as follows:

“But when did he get here?”

“Is he here yet?”

“Oh, he's here, my book says he arrived...let's see...15 minutes ago.”

“Fifteen minutes ago? That can't be right. I have a different passage in that same book that says he's just now walking in the door.”

“But that's not right because my book has a prediction that he would have arrived 2 days ago.”

Under such circumstances, who could hear anything but their own arguments?

As to the many out there who are hungering for direct contact with the risen Christ, we in the NFF recognize their need and stand ready for our Lord's direction in this matter. That is the entire reason our group came into being.

Many have mistaken the directness of our speech (Lewis Benson's and now Pat's, for example) for an attitude of “extreme sectarian isolation”--it is not a new reaction. I believe it stems from our refusal to allow the truth we have received from God (and which Fox is constantly pointing to in his writings) to be in any way compromised or diluted.

After all, how does it serve the world to “play down” or “broaden” God's most important requirements such as “Hear my voice [and obey}” or “I will give you full power to obey if you listen with your whole heart”? Or just “Shut up [stand silent before Me] and listen”?

Certainly we cannot expect modern readers to leap into full-fledged interest in and study of Fox and the writings of other early Quakers. I agree that's unrealistic. It is our responsibility to make the message accessible and clear to today's hungry hearts. Many of us in the NFF have written articles, books, pamphlets, etc. in our own voices, and these publications are available.

But there's a reason we always refer back to Fox: because he stubbornly and consistently points the reader to the “Light that lighteth all men.”

Becky Hein

Comment by Earlon William (Bill) Carsley on 3rdMo. 26, 2015 at 0:15

Dear Allan,

I am sorry that I have misunderstood you, and I owe you a sincere apology.  I assumed that you were a Quaker, but it is clear to me now that you are not; although you certainly are a Quaker sympathizer (as I am!).  Your views on the "Lords Supper" are very far from those of Fox and the Quakers.  My concern about the timing of Christ's coming is not really relevant to you at this time, since you are not opposed to Christians celebrating a communal meal.  For you it doesn't matter much whether or not Christ has yet come in the manner Paul was expecting in the New Testament.  But for Quakers, although they fail to realize it, it is very important.

This is because, depending on the timing, it becomes an issue of choosing between the teaching of the apostle Paul or that of George Fox.  My proposal (and that's all it is - a proposal) is my way of trying to resolve that issue.  If Fox meant to teach that the communal meal was invalid from the time of Christ's Spirit presence at Pentecost then his teaching clearly contradicts Paul's in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (as you noted yourself).  Likewise, if Paul was referring to a "coming" later than AD 70 (perhaps still even in our future) then Fox and the Quakers have always been wrong to condemn other Christians for practicing a memorial meal. 

I am only trying to resolve that dilemma with my preterist proposal.  Again, I emphasize, my proposal is only tentative; I don't claim that it is a certainty.  I would welcome an evaluation and assessment of my proposal from others who are more knowledgeable about Fox than I am.  But unfortunately I have not been able to elicit any interest or meaningful discussion about it on this website.  I may have to go elsewhere to have that discussion.

It seems that my intentions are misunderstood here at NFF.  I am a friend of Quakers, and my desire is to offer some reasonable ideas about biblical issues that would be affirming to Fox and his message.  This is my honest intention, nothing more and nothing less.  I had hoped that my presence here would be a positive thing, providing some helpful perspective from a sympathetic outsider, whose only wish is to see Lewis Benson's vision become a reality.

Regardless of how that is working out, I want to say, Allan, that I have appreciated your deep spiritual tone and attitude and your obvious love for Christ since I first met you at the telephone conference. I say that sincerely.  Your grace and gentleness in the Spirit of Christ are most welcomed and appreciated.  God bless you, my friend.  I wish you well.

Bill

Comment by Earlon William (Bill) Carsley on 3rdMo. 26, 2015 at 0:32

Dear Becky,

I could not agree with you more that the timing of Christ's coming, in and of itself, is not a matter of vital importance.  Everyone seems to misunderstand why I have raised the issue.  It is because the timing is very important for Quakers.  This is because it becomes a matter, depending on how Fox is interpreted on the timing issue, of whether he contradicts the plain teaching of the apostle Paul (please see my most recent comment to Allan).  I have made the proposal I have because I want to support the concept that Fox and Paul are not contradicting each other!  My intentions are not to detract from the true gospel message, or focus on side issues.  I just realize how important this can be in helping non-Quaker Christians to be open to Fox and the early Quaker message.  If they believe Fox is contradicting the apostle Paul, then it will be very difficult for them to take him seriously as an inspired prophet (and rightly so).

I appreciate the fact that you and others at NFF are making an effort to get the message out, Becky.  I support you in that.  But I also honestly believe there is so much more that could be done.  The only reason I'm here participating in this forum is that I believe in Lewis Benson's vision, and I think it could be genuinely helpful for you folks to be engaged, and perhaps sometimes challenged, by the objective perceptions of a sympathetic outsider.  I just want you to know that, whether you think my presence here is helpful or not, I am sincere in my desire to see this work progress.  I wish only God's blessing to you and Ellis, and to the work of NFF.

Bill

Comment by Earlon William (Bill) Carsley on 3rdMo. 26, 2015 at 0:42

Ellis,

I have no argument with you about anything you have said about the true gospel.  The issue of the timing of Christ's coming is only important because of the points I have just made to Allan and Becky.  You may still feel that it is irrelevant to the work of reaching the world, but I would respectfully disagree.  It is an issue, along with many of the others that I've tried to raise here,  which can be either a stumbling block or a stepping stone, depending on how it is handled.  I am not your enemy.  If you would prefer that I discontinue trying to engage folks here at NFF, I will honor that.  All I ask is that you allow me to post a final (very brief and courteous) blog post, and that you be willing to leave my posts up on the website for the benefit of those who may have an interest in them.  I do want to thank you sincerely for giving me the opportunity to share what's on my heart in this forum, Ellis.  God bless you.

Bill

Comment by Allan Halton on 3rdMo. 26, 2015 at 15:12

Bill, thank you for your kind words.  You are right, I am not a Quaker.  But neither am I a Baptist, nor a Pentecostal, nor a Presbyterian, nor any of the designations by which Christians have been named or name themselves, although I have experienced water baptism, and Spirit baptism, and believe in the leadership of a plurality of elders... and, among other things, tremble at His word.  I am happy to walk with anyone who is in the Way—our Lord Jesus Christ—and count the Quakers I have met through the New Foundation Fellowship among my dearest friends.

Comment by Ellis Hein on 3rdMo. 26, 2015 at 15:32

Bill, You have not been prohibited from putting up posts. And as far as I know there has not been any discussion of removing them. However, if you remove yourself from membership in the site, your posts and all comments on those posts and all comments you have made will automatically disappear and there is nothing I can do as administrator to prevent that. 

I now have a better understanding of what you are discussing. (Sorry to be slow to catch on.) I may have something rising within me in addition to what I commented earlier, but I am waiting to see just what I am to do.

Ellis

Comment by Earlon William (Bill) Carsley on 3rdMo. 26, 2015 at 15:44

Ok, Ellis.  All I wanted to do is say to the NFF community is that it's become apparent to me that the website managers don't see my contributions as being compatible with their aspirations and goals.  I'm sorry about that, because my intentions have only been pure and sincere.  And I only wanted to thank you publicly for giving me an opportunity to share what's on my heart and mind.  I also wanted to give my contact information for the sake of any who would wish to engage with me.  I don't intend to surrender my membership.  And you really didn't need to put me under "prohibition."  I told you I would not post if you asked me not to, and I am a man of my word.  My contact info, for any who read this and desire it:

Bill Carsley, 91 Buckfield Rd., South Paris, ME 04281

email: billcars@myfairpoint.net

Telephone:  207-744-0680

Thank you, Ellis.  God bless.

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page