Baptism

[Herald]

Kindly put, you know not of what you speak. What tenets of the Christian faith do Quakers deny? There are three main branches of Quakers; only one is liberal/modernist. The other two are moderate-evangelical, and conservative evangelical, these two being quite orthodox; they do not deny any of the central tenets of the Christian faith.

I've heard all kinds of false charges against the Quakers, but the Montanist one is a new one to me, and quite ridiculous.

The Salvation Army, strictly speaking, is a church (denomination) first and foremost and a Christian service organization second.

Seriously, you need to study this more. Everything you said is incorrect.

I apologize for not responding to this earlier. I am on the road a lot and frequently miss posts.

Montanism was a prophetic movement that ran the gamut between wild and ecstatic utterances and a more serious-minded intellectualism. It is the ancient forerunner of a number of Christian sects; most notably the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements and - yes- Quakers and Shakers. In spite of their denials the Shakers were an offshoot of Quakerism. If you want to press the issue I will be more than happy to provide you the history. But my main point stands; Quakers are outside the bounds of orthodoxy in many areas - from ecclesiology to soteriology.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I apologize for not responding to this earlier. I am on the road a lot and frequently miss posts.

Montanism was a prophetic movement that ran the gamut between wild and ecstatic utterances and a more serious-minded intellectualism. It is the ancient forerunner of a number of Christian sects; most notably the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements and - yes- Quakers and Shakers. In spite of their denials the Shakers were an offshoot of Quakerism. If you want to press the issue I will be more than happy to provide you the history. But my main point stands; Quakers are outside the bounds of orthodoxy in many areas - from ecclesiology to soteriology.

No need to apologize for your delay in responding. I understand.

Believe me, you do not have to provide me history. Quakerism was one of my sub-specialties in my formal studies, and I experienced Quaker worship personally, also. I have and had a special interest in Quakerism that has spanned 40 years.

To say that Montanism is the forerunner of Quakerism is simply wrong.

The main bodies of Quakers, the FUM, and EFI, are certainly NOT outside the bounds of orthodoxy in any area, unless you confine orthodoxy to Independent Fundamental Baptists.

 

[Herald]

No need to apologize for your delay in responding. I understand.

Believe me, you do not have to provide me history. Quakerism was one of my sub-specialties in my formal studies, and I experienced Quaker worship personally, also. I have and had a special interest in Quakerism that has spanned 40 years.

To say that Montanism is the forerunner of Quakerism is simply wrong.

The main bodies of Quakers, the FUM, and EFI, are certainly NOT outside the bounds of orthodoxy in any area, unless you confine orthodoxy to Independent Fundamental Baptists.

I never said that Montanism was the (definite article) forerunner of Quakerism. Montanism was certainly an influence.

I was fortunate enough to find this website about two years ago that encapsulates the problems Quakers have with orthodoxy. In short, their beleifs are all over the place. Quakers have a tendency to turn inward - a very postmodern view of religion. This is what you see in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements today (the reason I made the connection to Montanism). In the Montanist tradition the final appeal is always how the individual interprets the working of the Spirit of God. An intellectual nod may be given to Scripture, but in the end it is all about how the Spirit is leading the person. That is the ancient heresy of Montanism in a nutshell.

 

[kyredneck]

The reason Jesus was baptized by John was he was already functioning as our mediator.

Wow, I'd never thought of it like that before, and I'd say you're probably right. :thumbs:

What scripture would you use to support that?

My thought has been that He was baptized to set the example for us to follow.

 

[Salty]

Just checking, I've heard a lot of things come from people who claimed that they were Baptists:smilewinkgrin:

A couple of weeks ago, the pastor was doing the children's message - a mother went up with her child - as the pastor asked how do we go to heaven - this mother answered - be saved and get baptized.
NO! we do not believe in baptismal regeneration - the problem is that this lady ( who has been saved for several years) is not grounded in Bible doctrine.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I never said that Montanism was the (definite article) forerunner of Quakerism. Montanism was certainly an influence.

I was fortunate enough to find this website about two years ago that encapsulates the problems Quakers have with orthodoxy. In short, their beleifs are all over the place. Quakers have a tendency to turn inward - a very postmodern view of religion. This is what you see in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements today (the reason I made the connection to Montanism). In the Montanist tradition the final appeal is always how the individual interprets the working of the Spirit of God. An intellectual nod may be given to Scripture, but in the end it is all about how the Spirit is leading the person. That is the ancient heresy of Montanism in a nutshell.

Thanks for the link. Yes, that's a pretty good site.

I think you'll find what I said to be true: The only heterodox Quaker branch would be the liberal Friends General Conference. The Friends United Meeting (moderate-evangelical) and the Evangelical Friends Church International (fundamental/conservative-evangelical) are orthodox bodies. In fact, the latter is a Holiness body without required outward sacraments/ordinances.