Mail me comments, suggestions, warnings, flames, whatever
At 09:42 PM 1/2/96 -0800, you wrote:
>"In the last days some shall depart from the faith and give heed to
>seducing spirits and doctrines of devils."
How am I "giving heed" to this? Because I acknowledge
some value in what Fox writes about?
>could send you a text file of the chapter from my 1986 book, A PLANNED
>DECEPTION on "The Incredible Heresies of Matthew
Fox."
Please do so. I would be interested in reading it.
>Read carefully:
>
>Revelation 14:7
This verse seems to be much in harmony with what Fox writes about
>Jeremiah 10:23
I have no clue what you are suggesting here in your interpretation
of this verse
>Deuteronomy 18
Nor here. Just what are you accusing Fox of teaching in relation
to this?
>1 Corinthians, Chapter 10;
To suggest Fox advocates idolatry is to seriously misunderstand
what he is saying, which it seems you have done. You obviously
confuse pantheism (All IS God) with panENtheism (which is what
Fox espouses and means God IN all).
>Romans, Chapters 1 and 2
There's a lot of material here. Where does Fox violate any of
this?
>II Thessalonians, Chapter 2
So he's the AntiChrist? Gee whiz!
I'd love to hear some of your actual take on all of this, instead
of some verse references which would seem to have some kind of
obvious meaning to you that I would probably find some kind of
difficulty in concurring with. You see, I too consider myself
to be a very Biblical person, and very much devoted to living
what has been revealed to me as the message of the Scripture.
It seems to be difficult for a lot of people to understand that
our interpretations of the Bible are not 100% divinely inspired,
but we often act as if they are.
Please send me your text about Fox and I will respond to what
you have offered.
Thank you for the dialogue
Then in a following note you wrote:
>delusion that would sweep the earth in the last days and those who did
>not have the LOVE of the truth would be caused to believe a lie. What
>is the lie? Daniel 11:21 tells us of the last days that "such as do
>wickedly against the covenant, shall he corrupt with
the flatteries."
I think you focus on the wrong folks Constance. I find your associations with what Fox says with all this "satanism" sad. And when you suggest that I do not love the truth because I find value in what Fox writes is rather ridiculous.
Your accusations are more theological rigidity and really downright
misunderstanding (or lack thereof), and you see nothing of the
concerns Fox addresses, not those of me. To suggest also that
Miller is "deceptive" is also comical. He awakened me
to the "deceptions" in the church, and drew me into
the fellowship of Christ, so i find your accusations repulsive.
I actually feel sorry for your fundamentalism that has me convinced
that you are the one who is "duped", and your efforts
seems to be based on paranoia and a deep mistrust of everything
that does not follow your line of theological thinking.
>a. Such as practice divination
Show me where and I can most probably show you how utterly you
have missed the intent
>b. a witch
Come now
>c. causing one's son or daughter to pass through the
fire
ONce again , where?
>d. an observer of times (astrologer)
What?
>e. an enchanter
>f. a charmer (hypnotism)
>g. a consulter with familiar spirits (e.g. channeling, spiritualist)
>h. a wizard
>i. a necromancer (one seeking to invoke the dead or spirits of the
>dead)
You are just plain ignorant of his language I suppose. I see none
of this, or I see what he is talking about instead of what you
, in your haste to "demonize" someone you perceive to
be a theological "deviant".
>1 John 2:22 tells us "who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is
>THE Christ." I interpret this to mean as the one
and only.
And for you to actually believe that Fox denies Christ is again,
ridiculous. He never does such a thing......he simply denies the
Christ of many of the teachings of the church that have deviated
from the New Testament. You simply do not read or understand Fox's
meaning. You have no basis for your accusations.
>I don't know what you have read of Fox and what you
have not.
Practically all of his books.
>I found a number of books in a Methodist bookstore that sounded more
>like each other than the traditional teachings of their own
>denomination. One such book was WE, WE, WHEE by Matthew Fox. He
>proclaimed that now that we were entering a new spiritual age, the Age
>of Aquarius, it was idolatry to worship our gods of
the past.
See, the Gods of the past are NOT referring to God himself, but
the ideas about God that have, through cultural influence, become
more like the values of society and culture than those of the
gospel which often run against those of culture.
Constance, you really have no reason to be reading and worrying
about Fox, since his concerns are simply outside of your own.
I , in fact, think there is much we can learn from his observations
of Western culture's evolution of theology. YOu seem to indentify
with what I tend to identify as a thouroughly Westernized, rationalistic
kind of fundamentalism which strays far from the gospels which
you claim to take seriously.........I think you miss a lot of
the point.
>I found these and many other Matthew Fox passages, nearly verbatim, in
>books by one Alice Ann Bailey, Lucis Publishing Company. I was later
>to acquire some editions of some of her books under the original name
>of her company, Lucifer Publishing Company.
Oh , here we go. Did you try reading them backwards? Snap out
of it!!
> Fox's message, unfortunately, is to
>worship everything and everyone but the good Lord who
created all.
See, there's where you just miss the boat completely. Just becuase
the guy's piety is not like your own, you assume he does not worship
the same God you claim to. I think you misunsderstand, and I find
your arguments overly simplistic. You have no business trying
to interpret what he says, becuase you are from a school who seem
to have no clue of religious life outside of your own.
You
>worship the sea, you worship the fountains of water, you worship
>yourself, you even worship good ole Lucifer -- everything and everyone
>but the Creator.
PanENtheism, Constance, not Pantheism. I guess if it has the same
letters in the word, it's all the same to you.
>
>Fox negates the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
Hogwash.
His single greatest
>attack is on the doctrine of original sin.
His attack is on the overriding domination of Western theology
on this point, and not recognizing the other side of the paradox.
You seem to have a problem understanding paradox, Constance, and
that will cause you to be clueless about quite a bit.
We were not, per Fox, born
>with original sin, but with original blessing.
He does not say there is no original sin.
>Fox is a best friend of David Spangler. Spangler is the New Ager who
>distinguished himself in his book REFLECTIONS ON THE CHRIST by saying
>that we must take a Luciferic initiation
What might that be?
>Bruce Larson and Keith Miller were also busy at a much more subtle
>level than Fox in passing off New Age teachings to the Christian world.
> You entered at that level and have been progressively inculturated in
>these teachings which can only lead to death.
You're losing touch with reality Constance. You're interpreting
yourself in to a corner where you can just omit the real world
altogether.
>If you will give me a fax number, I will fax you the
facts on the Fox.
I don't have a fax, and I've heard enough. I think I've read something
like what you're going to say on the Web already.
>Sincerely and I am truly praying for you.
Pray for the world and how the truly oppressed in it will ever
be helped if we waste all our time trying to "sharpen"
our "theologies" while we ignore the kind of life Christ
taught and lived , and requires us to walk in if we are truly
to be his disciples.
On the other hand, if you have the mentioned text in a file, please
email it to me. I don't want to be too unfair, but frankly, I
can see what's coming now. You truly do NOT have a grasp on the
ideas of these people. It is one of the real pitfalls of fundamentalistic
theologies that they brand anything they do not understand or
have familiarity with as "satanic" and "Godless".
Kind of like the Crusades.
At 08:42 PM 1/4/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Per Paul as recorded in Titus:
>
>"A heretick after one or more warnings reject."
>
>
>Goodbye!
If only you really knew what that meant. I am sad for you. Your
Biblical interpretation is enslaved by prejudice and lack of information.
I do not, however, call you a heretic. I do not deny your faith,
and you should not do so with mine either. Nevertheless, even
if you do, I claim Christ as my saviour, and seek to always grow
in the knowledge of him and his will for my life, and then obey
that vision.. If that's not what being a Christian means, then
you had better check your definitions.
I challenge you to reject what I have just said about what being
a Christian means. If you have anouther or additional requirements,
then name them now.
I haven't heard from Constance today. If he responds again, then I'll decide whether it merits a response, or if we should go our separate ways. A Response from the internet to the above notes
Back to New Media Communications Home Page
Back to Internet Theological Seminary Table of Contents
Back to my "What is a Christian" page