Sorry TT, you have a lot of so called proof that Thieme is wrong but have you studied the BIBLE? All that I've read does not prove he is wrong. Have you investigated how one is filled with the Holy Spirit. Do you even know how? If you don't know how, how can you really think you can understand spiritual things? The Bible clearly teaches spiritual death and more than one kind of spiritual death and a first death and a second death and those 2 are spiritual. The Bible also uses the word death to describe other things as well, like operational death, physical, sexual, positional. The Bible clearly teaches from the OT law that Christ had to be sacrificed. Christ came to give us spiritual life and for us to become born again i.e. regenerated. To understand spiritual truths, It takes a person who is first born again and then filled by the Holy Spirit. If you are saved, What do you do to be filled with the Holy Spirit? Are people in cults filled with the Holy Spirit? I don't think so because they don't know how to be.

I ask all the critics of Bob Thieme the same question. That might be the reason you have not been able to understand the Bible doctrine he teaches and think he is wrong. You also might not be able to understand because you have not really studied the doctrine all the way through as taught by him. You have done your evaluation from a subjective approach and not an objective approach. Did Anrt and Ging understand the Doctrine? or did they just understand the greek word Blood minus understand spiritual death? Not to discredit them but hav'nt we of the 21'st century gained any more knowledge of God's word than what thy learned back at that time. Does not God raise up men to take us closer to what he gave the 1st century church? Did he raise up Arnt and Ging?

It's very clear to me that when Christ was judged on the cross he died a spiritual death so that we could become born again or become spiritually alive. Yes and a physical death as well. God the Father judged the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross as a substitute for our personal sins. That means God was satisfied with the work of Christ on the cross to remove the sin barrier which stood between God and man. Spiritual birth had to be bought by the spiritual death of Christ. Man is born spiritually dead so to become spiritually alive our sins past, present and future would have to be atoned for. Christ did that and the only thing left for man to do to receive eternal life and 38 other irrevocable absolutes is to trust Christ and his work on the cross. That is why all one has to do is to Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, (Acts 16:31). His work was a spiritual death as the result of the Judgement of the Father pouring out the sins of the world on Christ. We know that God the Father will seperate himself from sin, He who knew no sin was made to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. That took place from 12 noon to 3pm on the cross and then Christ said "Tetelistia" Finished in the past with the result that it keeps on being finished forever. What was finished? the atonement for all the personal sins of the world. That is what the blood of Christ means or stands for. It's not his literal blood but as the Jews would identify with the teachings of the OT animal sacrifices and the offerings they undestood the representative anology and the pharse Blood of Christ. Believers today who can see from the filling of the Spirit the analogy of the Blood is not the literal Blood but it represents the work of Christ on the cross and also what God the Father had to do to remove the sin barrier that stood between God and man. The Blood of Christ i.e. the work of Christ on the cross removed the barrier and it was not the literal blood that ran through his veins and then came out when he was nailed, wipped and peirced and then dripped to the GROUND but it was the work that he did as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world through his own Blood, his work on the cross. Christ was not a real animal Lamb but a figurative Lamb. The cross was not a physical altar but like a spiritual altar so that the Lamb of God could be sacrificed and become the substitute for our sins and spiritual death passed down to us from Adam's original sin. 1COR 15:22 As in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive. That means spiritual death from Adam and Spiritual life in and from Christ. We are born physically alive and spiritually dead. So to become spiritual alive we must be born again through faith alone in Christ alone.

OK TT, this post might not help you but I pray someone else will investigate the book BLOOD of CHRIST and study what is taught. Doctrine is built on doctrine so you might have to come to an understanding of other doctrines and then maybe you will understand the Blood of Christ. It depends on how far you are in your spiritual growth. I understand it and it makes sence to me, spiritual common sence. Does anyone else here understand it?

As for Pastor Thieme using his own words he coined to help us understand Biblical truths and principles, well the word RAPTURE is a coined word that is not found in the Bible but the principle is there and the majority of Churches use it, by the way, Does any one know who coined that word? That word describes something in the Bible that I hope everyone is looking forward to happenning. Then after that the Judgement seat of Christ will occur and Christians will either lose or gain eternal rewards. That day will glorify God either way and I hope all will recieve all that God has designed for them back in eternity past because of your faithfully studying learning, listening and being taught his word and reaching and maintaining spiritual maturity.

Truthtesty:

Do you even have a clue about Christ's death?

Do you believe Christ died physically or spiritually, or both?

Why did Christ die?

Why was Christ's legs not broken, but the other two thieves legs were broken?

Why was Christ's side pierced, but the other thieves were not?

Why did Christ die before the other thieves?

What feast where the Jews preparing to celebrate?

What does Tetelestai mean?

Ps,

Let me straighten you out...


<sup>Thieme brought this upon himself. If Thieme had not misrepresented the facts and the Word, then this thread would not exist. Christians have a right to gather and correct the errors of any elder. The Word of God is more important than the words of Thieme.

Take for example Thieme's misrepresentation for the "Blood of Christ". Since Thieme claimed followed Dr. Chafer so closely, then why didn't Thieme point out Dr. Chafer's own example of the figurative usage of the blood of Christ?

Thieme
Quote:
1 John 1:7 "And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL"

Truthtesty:

This is clearly NOT what Thieme learned at Dallas Theological Seminary. What Thieme should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary was:


Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood

Either Thieme was a poor student and missed this statement of Dr. Chafer or Thieme was intentionally misleading people about Dr. Chafer, for Thieme's own ends.

Another of Thieme's misrepresentations:

Thieme quote BOC 1979:

As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich


Truthtesty:

Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima

1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc... hemorrhage (cf. Lev 15:25, 20:18)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc... It's use as food is forbidden (cf. Lev 3:17, 7:26f, 17:10)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

2. fig--- a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc... shed blood = kill (Aeschyl.; Gen 9:6, 37:22, Lev 17:4,13, 1Km 25:31 al.;... Luke 11: 50, Acts 22:20, Rom. 3:15 (Ps 13:3, Is 59:7) Rv 16:6, Luke 11:51, Mt 23:20, Rv 16:6, 18:24, 17:6, 19:2, (1Km 9:7), 6:10, Pol 2:1, Mt 27: 4,24, Heb 12:4, (cf Heliod 7,8,2 ...) ...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

Truthtesty:

Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

So to determine the figurative usage of "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice compare 1Cl 55:1 with Rom. 3:25.

1 Clement 55:1 says

1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.

[www.earlychristianwritings.com]

Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.

Arndt and Gingrich goes on:

Arndt and Gingrich:
b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice (not just blood alone). Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only" and in doing so is unjustly attacking the Blood of Christ. Ardnt and Gingrich do not understand or agree with Thieme's false "figurative" teaching.

You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used with different people.

Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only" and Thieme's false theory that "haima" is ABSOLUTELY figurative and does not refer to literal blood, is not substantiated by the evidence of Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich.


Truthtesty</sup>


Ps,

You have much to learn. It is you who is being subjective. Stick to the facts. What part of the above do you not understand? Thieme falsified his evidentiary support for his false theory of "spiritual death only". PERIOD. Thieme does not have the lexicongraphical support of Ardnt and Gingrich. Yet? Thieme claimed he did have thier support for his false theory. That is a intentional deception on Thieme's part. If you are unwilling to question Thieme and are unwilling to objectively look at the obvious facts and admit the truth, then it is you who has a problem with discernment of truth.

You say Christ was a "figurative lamb"? Prove it. Then why did Jesus appear in the flesh? the real flesh? It wasn't figurative flesh. It was real flesh. Do you think God is stupid? Do you think God just does dumb things like sending Jesus in the Flesh and Blood for no reason whatsoever? None zero zilch?


That leads me to my next exercise I give to poor, non-discerning, "unwilling to question Thieme" thiemites.

Here is how it went with one of your predecessors:


<sup>November 17, 2007 03:25PMTruthtesty
Date Added: 01/13/2007
Posts: 384 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.To the Forum:

Simply, if spiritual death were the only aspect requirement, then why didn't Jesus just spiritually die (separate from the Father) as the Angel of Jehovah and resurrect?

Truthtesty: I asked gene this question many times. gene was evasive. Finally gene PM'd this to me in a "private message"

gene "If he died as the Angel of Jehovah? It could not work. For the sins of our human flesh could not be imputed to the body of an angel who is a different substance."


Truthtesty:

That is not an answer to people who use common sense. That is not an answer which thinks through and applies logic to the theory as a whole.

So thiemites, what would that "different substance" be?

Could that "different substance" be "flesh and blood"?

gene COULD have said " "If he died as the Angel of Jehovah? It could not work. For the sins of our human flesh could not be imputed to the body of an angel who is not "flesh and blood".

gene tries to put as much distance between "flesh and blood" as possible, by using "other" words "different substance"

So logically gene, tell this forum how our sins of the flesh could only be IMPUTED into the "flesh and blood" of Jesus. Answer this gene if sins could only be imputed through Jesus' "flesh and blood" Would not that make "flesh and blood" efficacious? Efficacious and necessary for salvation? Yes. It would.

Yes! The flesh and blood of Jesus WERE/ARE necessary and efficacious and they performed thier part in God's process(s).

Thus the reverse is proven to be true. "It" in "it is finished" does not refer only to "spiritual death only".

Thieme's "spiritual death only" theory, is proven incorrect.</sup>

Also, gene gave the standard false half-arguement that Thieme gave. I know because I heard Thieme say it.

Thieme's logic is flawed and lacking according to biblical evidence, on the "spiritual death only" issue and on many many many other issues.


Truthtesty

Ps,


Remember Jesus was also a Prophet.

Luke 24:19 "And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.

So here is another aspect Thieme should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary:

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Vol I pg 378

"With prophetic vision He said, even before His death, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4), and when He reached the moment of death He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30)"

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Vol. III pg 87

"...the finished work of Christ. This term is derived from the words of Christ on the cross, namely, “It is finished” (John 19:30). There was no reference on Christ’s part by these words to the truth that His own life, service, or sufferings were coming to an end. It is rather that a specific undertaking committed to Him by His Father, which could not have begun until He was on the cross, was consummated. It is true that the Father had given Him a work to do in His three and a half years of service. To this reference is made in the words, “Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34); “But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me” (John 5:36). In contradistinction to this, a specific work was committed to the Savior which began with His cross sufferings and ended with His death. It is to this that His words “It is finished” refer. Of this same saving work of the cross the Savior in His priestly prayer spoke when He said, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4). That He could speak thus of a work which had not at that time even begun is explained by the fact that the whole of the Upper Room Discourse, including the priestly prayer, was dated by Christ in relation to the cross, the resurrection, the ascension, and the advent of the Spirit as though these momentous events were accomplished. What was wrought on the cross and finished when He died will be discovered only through an investigation into that which was included in His redemption, His reconciliation, and His propitiation."



Truthtesty

TT: You say I said Christ was a "figurative lamb"? Prove it. Then why did Jesus appear in the flesh? the real flesh? It wasn't figurative flesh. It was real flesh. Do you think God is stupid? Do you think God just does dumb things like sending Jesus in the Flesh and Blood for no reason whatsoever? None zero zilch? I think you misunderstand what I was saying.

You said Theime falsified his support, it might appear that he did but if he did he removed it from his book. I personnal would not judge him for that because God has all the facts and I do not.

So where are the People teaching the Doctrine of pleading the Blood or the one that states that the Blood of Christ was taken in a bowl up to heaven? Have you heard of those before? Who's out there Blasting those doctrines?

Christ is the God-Man not a literal lamb with 4 legs. So that is what I meant by figurative lamb, he's not an animal or real lamb. He could not be an angel on the cross either, for Adam sinned resulting in all mankind receiving a sin nature capable of commiting personal sin. Christ came as a perfect sinless man to save man and bring many sons into glory. He is described as a Lamb to identify him with the OT sacrifices of the Mosaic law. So if Christ is not an animal but animal sacrifies where given as representing Christ and his work on the cross. What does that tell you? The Lamb of God title is a representative analogy, figurative lamb for the person and work of Christ. If the Blood of the animal on the altar was literal blood it taught what Christ would do on the Cross, the Blood of Christ represents the person-a perfect man and the work of Christ on the Cross. His work bought our salvation. Not the literal Blood that dripped to the ground that never reached a physical altar like the animal blood did but his work on the cross. Do you believe in his work on the cross? What was it? You say it's his literal Blood that has some power. I say it's his work that has the power. Romans 1:16 says The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes... Paul said Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. I believe, do you? What is the Gospel.. 1Cor 15:1-3

In your mind Pastor Thieme is wrong in my mind He has taught me many truths that the Lord has not seen fit to correct possibly because they are not in error. But if they are I will eventually discover and I hope you do as well. So why should i believe what you say is correct based on things you say now and you not even being one who has learned any updated information from Pastor Thieme. Yes he has some things he has updated because he was always studying and finding more truth even correcting things that he had taught previously as he was growing as a Pastor and he was always growing because he was always studying. The Doctrine of Blood of Christ explains in detail what it means. So I think I would rather trust his word over those who are just out to discredit him because he teaches what he has learned from his studies and evaluation of scripture and has not taught exactly what everyone elses teaches verbatim. He did have the gift of Pastor teacher, you know, and he was a Theologian and student of the original languages and he did teach myself and many others things that got myself and others to spiritual maturity and God knew what he was doing allowing myself and others who love the word of God to learn from him, an imperfect person like all Pastors but one with much wisdom. But it's not the man but the message that is important above all else. So check your doctrine a little bit closer and find out how to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I don't think you really know, do you? Has your Pastor taught you that? That is a very important doctrine. Your spiritual growth and eternal reward depends on knowing and applying that little elementary doctrine. Try using 1John 1:9 as much as possible too.

OK if you want to think Pastor Thieme mis-represented Arnt and Ging. I did not read those references in his book "The Blood of Christ" maybe because it was revised in 2002. If you are right about that then he has to answer to the Lord for that as we all will answer to the LORD because last I heard there are no perfect Christians or Pastors. At least he corrected himself about using them as proof but others are there in the 2002 book as proof. But what you say still does not mean the doctrine is wrong with so many other scriptural proofs that you seem to want to disreguard or should I say look past by and ignore.

You missed my whole point as well. My point is, The perfect God-man who knew no sin was made to be sin for us. The perfect person with no old sin nature and never sinned personally was the only one who could die spiritually on the cross for the sins of the world. The sins of mankind had to be atoned for and was, by the spiritual death of Christ on the cross. His physical Blood remained in his body until after he was physically dead and had died spiritually before dying physically, to show all that his blood in his body and his physical death had nothing to do with the atonement of sins but his spiritual death did. So explain to me and with scriptures why Christ did not wait until after his ressurrection to say"Tetelestia". = "Finished" "in the past with the result that it keeps on being finished forever" (the greek grammar)? But he said it after he died spiritually expressed when he said "My God My God why have you forsaken me. I'll explain it to you if you don't know. Do I think God is stupid? No, Men are ignorant and hard hearted.

So like I said before I believe the doctrine to be correct and if you don't that is up to you. We will all stand before the Lord who will correct all the misunderstandings that exist in all our doctrines if we have any. The ones you believe in and the ones I believe in. The important thing is to love one another and to grow spiritually and the Holy Spirit will lead and guide us into all truths eventually. Your Pastor might be teaching false doctrine and you don't even know it yet, but you will not see me going after him with such vigor as those on this site go after my Pastor. WHY? All Pastors are accountable to the Lord and not to me. Plus I'd be a fool knowing what I know to take the chance and receive the double dose of divine discipline that he gives to Pastors and to those who get in the way of it going to Pastors. I like the truths that I have been taught and the revised ones as well. I'm not too proud to say That I'm wrong, when I discover and know I am and neither was Pastor Thieme to my awareness. I've listened to him almost everyday since 1974. We are all growing spiritually and coming into the unity of the Faith. Well, if you are under a growing Pastor that is. So keep searching the scriptures and and listening to the right Pastor to teach you the Word of God so that when you stand before the Bema Seat/Evaluation Throne of Christ your Pastor teacher can give a good account for you and so that you will not be ashammed and your works recieve Gold, silver, precious stone (Analogy for Eternal Rewards). 1Cor 3:11-18.

Thanks TT. I'm not sure I see your point totally here but you can elaborate more if you care too. So do you know what the grammatical construction of the words "Finished" are used in each of those passages? That makes all the differencs in the world.

(With prophetic vision He said, even before His death, “I have "finished" the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4), and when He reached the moment of death He said, “It is "finished” (John 19:30)" )

I have not checked them out yet but I will try to later. I'm no greek advanced student but I know enough to realize it makes a difference in the translation and interpretation of each passage.

Ps,


Perhaps you missed what I wrote about filling of the Holy Spirit. It was on the same page that you initially introduced yourself. Thieme was also misinformed on the filling of the Holy Spirit. Don't confuse your masochistic submission to Thieme's sadistic gentile authority, with the filling of the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact dependency on Thieme was/is not necessary for the filling of the Holy Spirit at all. There is no "equivalent" dependency on Thieme and the Holy Spirit. Thieme's "puffed up" legalistic bible class of so-called spiritual growth was/is not necessary. The dependency is entirely upon the Holy Spirit, regardless of where you are.


<sup>Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology Vol 6, pg 261

III. “WALK IN THE SPIRIT”
Advancing at this point to a contemplation of the third condition upon which the Spirit’s filling may be experienced, it should be restated that this condition is positive in character while the two already considered are negative—respecting that which should not be allowed. The positive requirement concerns that which is to be wrought in the life by the Holy Spirit and is far-reaching in what it includes. The Authorized Version translation of a determining verse like Galatians 5:16 is misleading. By this kind of rendering the text seems to impose responsibility upon the believer to maintain a walk in the Holy Spirit, whereas the more accurate rendering of the text assigns such achieving of the walk to the Holy Spirit and enjoins upon the Christian the attitude of dependence upon the Spirit. It is obvious that the Christian has no power within himself, in spite of the new nature, whereby to enter, promote, or maintain a walk in the Spirit. It is because of this native incapacity that the Spirit is given to indwell him. The whole situation is reversed and impossible assumptions are suggested when the believer is urged to walk by his own ability rather than by the Holy Spirit. The responsibility resting upon the Christian is not that of attempting the walk; it is rather the obligation to maintain an attitude of confidence and expectation toward the Holy Spirit, which dependence will make the Spirit’s promotion of the walk a blessed reality. One interpretation of this passage in Galatians implies that the believer is to lead or direct the Holy Spirit, while the more defensible viewpoint makes out that the believer is to be led in a path of God’s own choosing and to be empowered by the Spirit unto every good work. The immediate promise to the believer is that when walking by means of the Spirit the lust of the flesh will not be fulfilled....

... To “walk in the Spirit” means, then, to depend upon the Spirit. The use as a literary figure of the act of walking to represent the continued responsibility of living daily to the glory of God is apt.

...All of this suggests personal intimacy with the Holy Spirit. His presence is to be an actuality in experience, and the practice of depending consciously and habitually upon His enabling power must be maintained. This specific manner of life is wholly unlike the natural ways and practices of men. The walk by means of the Spirit is an achievement which calls for unceasing attention and patient advancement, looking to its execution. All who are born into this world must learn to walk as a proper function of the physical body; it should not be deemed strange if it is required of those born of the Spirit that they too learn by experience and practice how to walk by means of the same Spirit. It is to be expected that a child will creep before it walks and that it will experience many failures and falls before being able to walk freely. It is equally reasonable to expect a certain amount of effort and failure to occur along the path before the walk by the Spirit is perfected. Doubtless it is only an unexperienced theoretical consideration in the minds of the great majority of believers that the Holy Spirit has taken up His abode in their hearts. To such it becomes a day of marvelous discovery when perhaps in feeble faith they rest their weight upon Him and discover by living experience that He is there and ready and willing to accomplish that which is committed to Him. It need not be demonstrated further that if the power of the Spirit is to be actualized one must pass beyond the range of theories, and into the vital tests of a commitment of even the first step in a walk by means of the Spirit to His gracious person to accomplish. No intelligent step can be taken until there is some distinction borne in mind about the difference in method and practice between walking by dependence upon self or the flesh and walking by dependence upon the Spirit. Here, again, rules are of little aid. The walk by the Spirit must be the outworking of personal experience—not the attempted imitation of others, but the result of one’s own trial of faith...

...The impression has been created that the natural functions of human life are to be set aside and the mind and will are rendered dormant, to the end that the Spirit may exercise His own mind and will. Such a notion is foreign to the plan of God as that purpose is revealed in the New Testament. As He did with Gideon, the Spirit clothes Himself with the believer’s body and faculties and, without manifestations of Himself, works in and through those faculties. Though thus hidden from observation, it is nonetheless the uncomplicated work of the Spirit. With the tremendous issue of the believer’s life in view, it is evident that definiteness in the matter of the believer’s attitude of trust is of major importance.</sup>



Truthtesty

P S Welcome to the board, please stick around if you can.

I would like your and SynergyCon's thoughts on a gentleman's testimony given back in September about Bob Thieme.

Juker's Testimony Link on Rick Ross

It's about the 5th or 6th post down. (It was getting pretty crazy at the time on this thread, Testy and I had just ran off a white supremacist, who was also 'attacking' Bob, but because he liked Jews, NOW THAT WAS SOME HATE)

Please read Juker's post and let me know what you think, is he crazy, bitter, mad, no telling the whole story...

thanks,
KCJONES

Ps quote: Christ is the God-Man not a literal lamb with 4 legs. So that is what I meant by figurative lamb, he's not an animal or real lamb. He could not be an angel on the cross either, for Adam sinned resulting in all mankind receiving a sin nature capable of commiting personal sin. Christ came as a perfect sinless man to save man and bring many sons into glory. He is described as a Lamb to identify him with the OT sacrifices of the Mosaic law. So if Christ is not an animal but animal sacrifies where given as representing Christ and his work on the cross. What does that tell you? The Lamb of God title is a representative analogy, figurative lamb for the person and work of Christ.

Truthtesty: What does that tell you? According to your errored theory literal shed animal blood has more "Christian significance" than the literal Shed Blood of Jesus SHED FROM HIS VEINS. You would relegate and devalue the literal Shed Blood of Jesus to have no "Christian significance" whatsoever? Do you "know not what" you do? To you animal blood is more important than Jesus' own literal Shed Blood. So what symbolism does Jesus' own Blood have for you or does Jesus' Blood get no representation? Other than just rotten dried blood on the ground? nothing zero zilch?

The literal Shed Blood of Jesus was part of Jesus' work which you say you have faith in. To deny the work of Jesus in part or in total is something you are resposible for. I don't think "cuz my arrogant bombastic pastor with an extremist political agenda said so and I haven't done my own personal research" is going to cut it, but that's up to you.

The "body of Christ" is also a representative analogy, but that doesn't mean Jesus did not have a literal body of flesh or that Jesus' literal body was not efficacious.

Differentiated context is what is important to note here. The same words can be used in different contexts to have very different meanings.


Truthtesty

Ps quote: OK if you want to think Pastor Thieme mis-represented Arnt and
Ging. I did not read those references in his book "The Blood of Christ" maybe because it was
revised in 2002. If you are right about that then he has to answer to the Lord for that as
we all will answer to the LORD because last I heard there are no perfect Christians or
Pastors. At least he corrected himself about using them as proof but others are there in the
2002 book as proof. But what you say still does not mean the doctrine is wrong with so many
other scriptural proofs that you seem to want to disreguard or should I say look past by and
ignore.

Truthtesty:

I am not "wanting" to think Thieme misrepresented Ardnt and Gingrich. The fact is Thieme
DID misrepresent Ardnt and Gingrich. And it is noteworthy of Thieme's lack of credibility
and and lack of integrity. Don't blame me that's the FACT. If you can't handle the FACT and
the truth of that without discriminating Thieme's error and trying to blame me somehow as if
I am "wanting" to think that he did misrepresent Ardnt and Gingrich, then that just shows
your lack of a capacity to be objective about the facts. Typical Thieme "culty".

Well I know Thieme referenced Ardnt and Gingrich from the 1st Blood of Christ manual to
at least 1979.

I am not worried about Thieme answering to the Lord. The truth of the Word is what is
important HERE AND NOW! That should be the priority. "Rightly divide" remember? It's not "don't divide
cuz a pastor could be blamed, will be blamed, might be blamed". It's "study to show thyself" (that's yourself - your study)"approved unto God" not "approved unto Thieme". A workman that needeth not be ashamed -
Don't be ashamed of your personal study and do not cast it aside because of Thieme or any
other persons studies.

As far as Thieme making corrections to his own errors in public, I never heard him say he
made a single mistake. But I am open to hear someone prove by evidence that Thieme did admit
PUBLICLY to making a mistake.

Ps quote: "But what you say still does not mean the doctrine is wrong with so
many other scriptural proofs that you seem to want to disreguard or should I say look past
by and ignore"


Truthtesty:

What? It means Thieme doesn't have the support that he said he did.

Thieme hasn't proven his "spritual death only" theory. It doesn't line up with biblical evidence.

Scriptural Proofs?

Again I "want" to disregard? Be careful. You show up here accusing me of wanting to disregard scriptural proofs (your generalizing and judging with prejudice by the way). BE SPECIFIC. STICK TO THE FACTS. STICK TO THE SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I am not from Missouri, but show me anyhow. Show me where I have disregarded scriptural proof. SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE OF WHERE HAVE DISREGARDED ONE SCRIPTURAL PROOF.


Truthtesty