Thanks for posting this STE. Since he's a member of the RF Pastors Council, I'd have to assume that this arrogant, arrant nonsense is approved by that "august" body.

That this man could ignore the profound implications of John's prologue to his recounting of the gospel speaks volumes about Visser's ignorance. That he could misrepresent the history of the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, and its status as a fundamental understanding of historical Xianity reveals even more clearly his ignorance.

The "all will become one" misrepresentation of Jn 17 is gobsmacking.

I don't say this lightly, but Visser certainly presents as a fool.

Hi, Talmid.

Caveat emptor, eh?

Blessings,

Ian

Ha Ha Ha Well said.

 Eric

 Hi, All.

Hi, STE.

I think that many pastors in RF actually do believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, and therefore implicitly in the Trinity, but they just don't think about it much and would be mortified to actually use the word "Trinity", since in Revival circles that sounds perilously close to "wishy-washy so-called christianity". I'm far less convinced than you are on this score. To believe in the deity of Christ is to acknowledge what Scripture says concerning him, that is that he is God Incarnate. Personally I doubt there would be a Revivalist pastor walking the planet who understands the (soteriological and eschatological) implications of this statement. They simply haven't a clue, their mistaken emphasis on the Holy Spirit (well, on 'tongues' actually) betrays as much. Then there's the fact that even Unitarians acknowledge the 'deity' of Jesus (i.e. little 'g' god), but they don't for one minute believe that what God 'is', Jesus 'is' too (i.e. big 'G' God). Neither do Revivalists. An Australian senior pastor with whom I corresponded recently admitted that he believes in the deity of Christ, but getting an answer out of him was like pulling teeth. I don't doubt it.

Not to mention all of the other serious implications, if Jesus isn't God, but merely a created being. When the NT statement, 'Jesus is LORD' is backcast from Greek to Hebrew it reads, יהושע הוא יהוה. In English this becomes 'Jesus is Yahweh': the Eternal, the Uncreated, the One. Knowing this should bring new 'brilliance' to the 'light' that one finds shed in passages such as Romans 10:9, and 1 Corinthians 12:3. I really do wonder what the ratio amongst the RF pastors would be, between those who do and those who don't believe in Jesus divinity? Any guesses? I bet Ian knows the exact statistic ;) Well now, I reckon I do. If 'believing' in Jesus' divinity involves what I suggest, then the percentage of RF pastors who so 'believe' is 'zero'.

Blessings,

Ian

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 8:56-58 is clear to me.

Jesus and God are One! Further Acts 5 tells us that the Holy Ghost is God...

Three in the unity of one...Tri-Unitos...Trinity

As I said clear to me.

Luke 7:35

Tony,

You claim that the Christian position regading God as Trinity is 'clear' to you, so answer the following two simple challenges: (1) describe for me the implications of perichoresis with respect to salvation. And, (2) explain for me the procession of the Spirit, and it's implications for salvation (i.e. Τον Άγιον Πνεύμα στέλνεται από τον Πατέρα μέσω του Υιού).

Three in the unity of one...Tri-Unitos...Trinity

There's no such 'animal' as 'Tri-Unitos', you goose (Latin masculine and neuter nominals end in '-as', not '-os'). Hence the orthodox statement, 'unitas in trinitas'.

Heretic.

Ian

Ian,

Be careful he doesn't plagiarize with google....

Eric

Hi STE,

Revivalists such as the fringe group the Revival Fellowship are not good at quoting their sources. Perhaps it is because they prefer to plagiarize abnormal heresy to support their own weird heresies!!

Let me think: Pieter Visser has plagiarized "The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be THE WORSHIP OF NIMROD AND HIS WIFE by the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop, Second American Edition. Published in America by Loizeaux Brothers Inc. pages 12 - 21.

Eric

תלמיד חכם,

Be careful he doesn't plagiarize with google... I'm not overly concerned. Even though Barton might scour Google to come up with something that sounds half-ways intelligent, it's inevitable that he'd get it wrong. In any case, the heretic was on the forum when I wrote that piece late last night, and he declined responding to my twin challenges at the time. You realise that he's out of his depth in an exegetical wading pool, I know it, and he knows it too.

חן שלום

המורה

You know Ian, the term "perichoresis" is one of the most mind blowing concepts in Theology, because of implications, that I have ever come across - truly absolutely awesome indeed..

Better not say anymore and let's see if the Heretic can pluck up the courage and face the challenges he has..

good night Ian

 שׁלוֹם

 Eric

Bah - I have Ralph's problem of forgetting to log in .. I'll get over it

Eric

Bah - I have Ralph's problem of forgetting to log in .. I'll get over it

 

Eric

 

Say what! Not often I forget to ‘log in’. I don't have alzheimer's.....I don't have alzheimer's.....I don't..??