Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
|
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums
Aimoo Forum List |
Ticket |
Today |
Member |
Search |
Who's On |
Help |
Sign In |
|
|
| Title: Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... | |
| Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Revival Churches > The Revival Fellowship (TRF) Discussion | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
|
Ex_Member
|
|
|
Date Posted：18/02/2009 1:06 PMCopy HTML https://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/090218_210207_87628123.doc
https://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/090218_210229_28321149.pdf The man twists every doctrine possible! He even denies the Godhead now. I wonder how much lower he could actually go. He will have to answer for all his heretical teachings and blasphemy. Anyway, the attached is for former members to read and praise God they are finally away from that group! In the love of Jesus, nO_JeZeBeL |
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#1
|
|
Re：Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... Date Posted：18/02/2009 9:49 PMCopy HTML 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 email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#2
|
|
Re：Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... Date Posted：18/02/2009 10:29 PMCopy HTML 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? |
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#3
|
|
Re：Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... Date Posted：21/02/2009 2:29 AMCopy HTML 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.."  |
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#4
|
|
Re：Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... Date Posted：21/02/2009 4:53 AMCopy HTML 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 |
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#5
|
|
Re：Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... Date Posted：21/02/2009 5:38 AMCopy HTML 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 |
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#6
|
|
Re：Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... Date Posted：21/02/2009 7:52 PMCopy HTML Reply to Episkopeo (21/02/2009 01:10:09) Eric,
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
|
Share to:
#7
|
|
Re：Wolf Piet avoiding the substance as usual... Date Posted：22/02/2009 4:40 AMCopy HTML 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. The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
|
