QuakerInfo.com Forum

rocketsfan05 · Joined: 14 Jul 2010 Posts: 20 Location: New Jersey

I know most denominations of christianity explicity state that they believe in the Trinity. Yet I read somewhere that Quakerism is lenient on beliefs about God and that some Quakers are Unitarian or at least have views on the Trinity that differ from most Christians. Is that true?

Shay · Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 885

michaeldavidjay · Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Posts: 452

The society of Friends is rather fragmented so it is impossible to give a general overview on the more speculative part of Theology.... I assume that you are asking about current practice.

http://www.quakermaps.com/info gives an overview of the range -- from universalist liberal meetings to Christian Fundamentalist meetings. I have become aware that this list leaves out non-theists.

---

If I were to judge from late 17th century and 18th century writings, Friends were pretty standard trinitarians officially... but -- there was somewhat more room for diversity as long as you were careful to keep some of your notions to yourself... there were not any orthodoxy tests, such as requiring a person to affirm a creed in order to take part in the life of the meeting.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

rocketsfan05 · Joined: 14 Jul 2010 Posts: 20 Location: New Jersey

By trinitarian I mean the beliefs that Jesus is divine and that God is three people, by unitarian I refer to any monothestic belief opposed to that. Thanks for the link!

michaeldavidjay · Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Posts: 452

is modalism trinitarian or unitarian? By trinitarian, do you mean nicene, or do you accept other definitions as well?

Robert Barclay's Apology painted Friends as Trinitarian, as did George Fox in his lettter to the governor of Barbados. William Penn was imprisoned for havvingdifferent views in 'sandy foundation'
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

Jim Wilson · Joined: 13 Sep 2009 Posts: 99 Location: Northern California

BillSamuel · Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:07 pm Post subject:

Early Friends objected to other Christian groups making belief in their own doctrine of the Trinity the test of whether a person was a Christian. They pointed out that the Bible never used the term. Some were concerned that the emphasis on three different persons bordered on being polytheistic. The doctrine, as normally stated in that day and even in this day, included things that were not clearly scriptural.

However, they did agree in the divinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. When the Toleration Act was passed in Britain giving religious freedom to all who believed in the Trinity, Quakers enjoyed religious freedom. This seems to be an acknowledgment that Quakers in some sense believe in the Trinity, although loath to use the term and having objections to some aspects of what others preached as the doctrine of the Trinity.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ

plati · Joined: 25 Oct 2010 Posts: 3

Hi all,

I encountered Trinity issues when I belonged to the Reformed Presbyterian Church. From the point of view of historical, theological, dogmatic, it is very difficult to understand and those are related to the translations of Bible as well. I try to understand briefly on this issue and I just think more simply. Praying to one God or three Gods. For me, I pray to one God. I am not sure whether if the Religious Society of Friends is called "Unitarian". There are several Unitarian Christian sects in U.S. and througout the world. Thus, I think Quakers are not to be categolized Unitarian nor Trinitarian.

Kindly Regards,

kevin roberts · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:02 pm Post subject:

hey tsunoda-san

konnichi-wa

bill makes a useful point. the friends hated to use the word, but if pressed would usually admit a trinity while asserting that they didn't like to speculate on theology that wasn't clear in scripture. current quaker beliefs on the trinity are murky, because quakers have a murky history of schisms, and disagreements about the trinity figured prominently in the disagreements.

on the other hand, william penn did some time in the tower of london for a scathing criticism of trinitarianism, which he wrote at the age of 24. he was kept there without charge or trial until he wrote a clarification of his position.

sandy foundation shaken

http://mikeblume.com/sandyfoundation.htm

this is the essay that got penn in trouble

mdj, don't most explicit modalists reject being called trinitarian? i'm thinking of the pentecostals

michaeldavidjay · Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Posts: 452

@Keven -- yes the oneness Pentecostals would not want to be called Trinitarian.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

Dan · Joined: 03 Dec 2003 Posts: 273 Location: midwest

Friend,
Our forefathers believed that God was: Father, Son & Holy Spirit and that each was God. They refused to use the word "trinity" for the fact it is not mentioned in scripture. For much the same reason, many Evangelical Friends today would refer to the return of Christ as just that, and not use the word Rapture as that term is also not in the scripture.

Somewhere along the line, some Friends have adopted a "unitarian" position, but I don't believe historically this was our forefather's belief, however, we see no doubt many "modern" Friends hold positions that were not held by our forefathers.

We in evangelical circles believe in evangelistic meetings and First Day Schools or as some even will call it: Sunday School. I'm not so certain our foretahters would have approved of these, either. At least they wouldn't have had "Sunday School".

Thy Friend,
Dan

Shay · Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 885

Anthony · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 1542

wheatpenny · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 41 Location: York, PA, USA

CelticNorth · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 755 Location: East of Eden

My leading is that the Holy Trinity has as its foundation in the ontological belief of the pre-existance of Chirst ( Jesus of Nazareth to "Christians" ), where in John 1:1-18, Jesus (of Nazareth) is identified as the Christ with a pre-existant divine "hypostasis", called the Logos, or Word. Of course, it is physically impossible for Jesus of Nazareth to have existed before his time, and we now know that the Egyptian God Ptah is credited with speaking forth the Logos, or Word, from Memphis prior to the era of the Isralites, who apparently passed on this tradtion of the Logos. Unitarians and modern Unitarian Universalist deny the Holy Trinity, pehaps for this and other reasons, but the most welll known spokesman against the pre-existance of Christ is Joseph Priestly. He pointed out "...with respect to his own supposed Pre-existance and Divinity...He never told his Disciples that he had pre-existed, or that he had had anything to do before he came into the world, much less that he made the world". The "Word", according to John, "...was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God" clearly is a restatement of the Memphis theology, and which was later bestowed upon Jesus of Nazareth by his followers to Diefy him.