|
Didaktikon
|
1#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To nO%5FJeZeBeL
(Date Posted:18/02/2009 15:48:59)
So now I'm a Pentecostal preacher?!!! Eeewwww!
If people access the links and read my critique of Mr Visser's Editorial, they will very quickly discover that he refuses, point-blank, to engage with the insurmountable difficulties that result from my analysis of his views. In other words, he limits himself to ad hom attacks on the credibility of the person who sent the original email, and me. But based on what? The fact that we disagree with his ideas and can prove them wrong?
To those members of the European RF assemblies who may be reading this thread, ask yourself this: if what I said in my rejoinder is wrong, then why doesn't Mr Visser attempt to refute it by pointing out where and why I am wrong? I did as much regarding his editorial. In point of fact fact, I'd strongly recommend that you challenge him to demonstrate my supposed errors!
In clsoing I stand by my former claim: Piet Visser is a false teacher who has attempted to shore up a false doctrine by twisting Scripture. Clearly he is also a very arrogant man. In light of these veryserious moral failings, he cannot be a shepherd in the biblical sense.
God bless,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
nO_JeZeBeL
|
2#
|
Registered:28/11/2008
|
RE:Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual...
(Date Posted:18/02/2009 16:29:18)
Well, your response was posted to all and sundry in TRF, both in Europe and Australia, so I'm sure many people will be pondering on the substance therein.
He is renowned for kicking people out who disagree with his views. The usual, 'They lost their love for the LORD' and 'They had issues' keeps the others in line and in fear of questioning. Piet has also got his family in the leadership roles of the European division of TRF and his self-professed infallibility seems to be increasing in the evermore inward looking cult.
It is ironic calling you a pentecostal teacher, obviously you dislike the denomination, but one thing that humoured me was the fact they called any other Christian a pentecostal, even if they were Anglican. eg Tim Hughes was considered a pentecostal by them. This clearly shows they don't even understand what they are 'fighting' against.
His denial of Jesus deity will most surely sperate them from the Australian arm? Surely the Australians do not stretch their blasphemy so far?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Job 38: Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
|
|
Disciple(Ex-member)
|
|
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:20/02/2009 20:29:08)
Reply to Didaktikon (18/02/2009 15:48:59)
So now I'm a Pentecostal preacher?!!! Eeewwww!
No !! I would say a "Pauline Puritan Apologist.."
(Message edited by Disciple On 20/02/2009 20:30:09)
|
|
Episkopeo
|
4#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Reply To Disciple
(Date Posted:20/02/2009 21:17:56)
Reply to Disciple (20/02/2009 20:29:08)
Reply to Didaktikon (18/02/2009 15:48:59)
So now I'm a Pentecostal preacher?!!! Eeewwww!
No !! I would say a "Pauline Puritan Apologist.."
Eric, Perhaps with a vigour and zeal likened to a Quintus Septimius Florus Tertullianus?? Epi
|
|
Disciple(Ex-member)
|
|
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:20/02/2009 22:53:16)
Reply to Episkopeo (20/02/2009 21:17:56)
Eric, Perhaps with a vigour and zeal likened to a Quintus Septimius Florus Tertullianus?? Epi Yes without a doubt, Ian has a sharp eye and a quick mind for the unorthodox. Yes I have started already on "Corinthian Correspondence" and his essay up above is a very helpful starting point to some research I need to get underway very soon as in straight away. Wonder if I would get away with using it as an "article" for referencing purposes??? Certainly it has come at a very opportune time form me.. Eric
|
|
Disciple(Ex-member)
|
|
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:20/02/2009 23:38:35)
Eric,
Perhaps with a vigour and zeal likened to a Quintus Septimius Florus Tertullianus??
Epi
For example Ian makes this very succinct but very correct statement:
"Logos sophias and logos gnoseos implies a supernatural impartation of
very specific 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' - the source being the Spirit
himself - insights from the mind of the Spirit which are then to be
expressed verbally to the congregation. They are, therefore, time-bound
oracular pronouncements which seek to address specific situations as
the Spirit directs. Consequently such cannot be limited as Ps Visser
has sought to do into simply the 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' which is
accrued via the passage of time and/or Bible Study.."
Where Ian has really got it right is "time bound oracular
pronouncements" ... and within the context of "knowledge" for example
this can infer but not limited to the past and present time situations
and likewise "wisdom" can infer but not limited to the present and
future time situation which in general can be wisdomly guidance from
the Spirit Himself directing the Church to take a certain course of
action or heed warning.
But really Epi, the Revival Fellowship is moulded in the same
unorthodox and very unlearned position of their parent cult the Revival
Centres International.. But I suppose you could confidently say that
the RF DID NOT just merely split from the RCI but rather the RF is a BACKSLID from the RCI in a more unorthodox direction.
And also as I see Ian's position. Ian has never personally attacked
personae and any member of the RCI/RF/CAI groups but has always
challenged these groups merely on the grounds of their unorthodox
positions and statements. If Ps Visser wishes to limit "wisdom' in
the way and position that he does then he would do well to apply his same methodology to
the warnings from Ian's polemic on his current theological position.
blessings
Eric
(Message edited by Disciple On 21/02/2009 13:32:09)
|
|
Episkopeo
|
7#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual...
(Date Posted:21/02/2009 01:10:09)
Eric,
I have just re-read Ian's response (read v.late last night.) It is such a good response to Pastor Visser's very typically RF slant. A lot of this thinking seems to stem from the conditions which are placed on salvation.
Epi
|
|
Disciple(Ex-member)
|
|
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:21/02/2009 13:52:30)
Reply to Episkopeo (21/02/2009 01:10:09) Eric,
I have just re-read Ian's response (read v.late last night.) It is such a good response to Pastor Visser's very typically RF slant. A lot of this thinking seems to stem from the conditions which are placed on salvation.
Epi But you know what Epi.. I would suggest to you that ALL RF appointed "pastors" would be bound by some sort of agreement with John Kuhlman to only teach and abide by the official John Kuhlman position. And where/what are the credentials of John Kuhlman that qualifies him as a guardian of a person's salvation ???.. I am suggesting to You, Epi that John Kuhlman appointed "pastors" are not allowed to even think and reason for themselves fundamental Holy Truth. Golly be, even the most humble teacher in the Salvation Army carries a degree from a reputable learning institution such as a Ministry School.. I gues I might as well invent a new theological term and we call the RF with the title "Kuhlmanism" or if you like "The Kuhlman Heresy"... which Ian would call "Longfieldism" blessings Eric
|
|
Talmid
|
9#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
For Disciple
(Date Posted:21/02/2009 22:40:49)
Hi Eric,
A couple of posts back you posited that RF has become "more unorthodox" than RCI. I'm wondering ... what specifics do you have to support that?
I would suggest to you that ALL RF appointed "pastors" would be bound by some sort of agreement with John Kuhlman to only teach and abide by the official John Kuhlman position ... I am suggesting to You, Epi that John Kuhlman appointed "pastors" are not allowed to even think and reason for themselves fundamental Holy Truth.
The pressures are way more subtle (at this time) than the above suggests, many if not most RF pastors are in fact Longfield appointees, and the problems don't come from not being allowed to think for themselves.
Such implications are easily refuted by those still within RF, and so reduce the credibility of this site.
The problems come when they try to re-evaluate for themselves fundamental theological concepts such as the trinity. Most, such as, apparently, Visser, lack knowledge and understanding of scripture, context, theological debates and many seem to lack the ability to reason and to have missed out on the "nuanced thinking" gene. In short, they combine the same errors that led them to believe "no tongues = no Spirit" with pride that they are more than peers of theologians who codified the ecumenical creeds. The result is, and is likely to continue to be, dumb and heretical statements.
To paraphrase what has been pointed out before, the problem isn't so much that they are told what to think; rather they have a common - flawed - culture of *how* to think.
(Message edited by Talmid On 21/02/2009 23:37:07)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
Episkopeo
|
10#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Reply To Disciple
(Date Posted:22/02/2009 07:37:45)
But you know what Epi.. I would suggest to you that ALL RF appointed "pastors" would be bound by some sort of agreement with John Kuhlman to only teach and abide by the official John Kuhlman position. And where/what are the credentials of John Kuhlman that qualifies him as a guardian of a person's salvation ???.. I am suggesting to You, Epi that John Kuhlman appointed "pastors" are not allowed to even think and reason for themselves fundamental Holy Truth. Golly be, even the most humble teacher in the Salvation Army carries a degree from a reputable learning institution such as a Ministry School.. I gues I might as well invent a new theological term and we call the RF with the title "Kuhlmanism" or if you like "The Kuhlman Heresy"... which Ian would call "Longfieldism" blessings Eric Eric, As Talmid so well explained it "the problem isn't so much that they are told what to think; rather they have a common - flawed - culture of *how* to think." Looking through the RF Website recently I noticed in Issue 1 (Dec 2003) of Council Newsletter, photos of the (9) members of the Council of Pastors. All were Longfield appointees, the rather arrogant Pastor Visser being the European representative. According to the editor of the site, one Pastor Q, "the Council is mainly made up of senior pastors of bigger assemblies" .....And their credentials?..... "As a rule, God has proven their work and they have the most experience" From a Council of Pastors Newsletter on matters discussed :- "A number of resolutions emerged from the Council meetings. The Council strongly encouraged all to continue to evangelise wherever we can and to look forward for opportunities to foster evangelism among the gentile folk" "Warnings on the importance of "separation"......." Better leave it there. Epi
|
|
|
