Thank you for your post. I am not able to use the "know them by their fruits" argument, with my husband and sons. The pastors of this Thieme offshoot church have already maneuvered around this argument by teaching that "fruits" refers to the "fruit of the lips", or "the doctrine" that a believer professes. These pastors teach that it is wrong to go around "fruit inspecting", and that believers set themselves up as judges, in doing so. So using that argument would just result in their calling me "arrogant" and "judgmental". Let me tell you, they have everything sewed up pretty tight! They are very authoritative, and when I questioned too much, and did not come under authority (i.e. obey my husband in everything), I was labeled as "unsubmissive." Soon after arriving at this church, I volunteered to be the church pianist, even though my skills were limited. The church was in need of an accompianist, and apparantly no one else had the ability, or was willing to volunteer. About seven years later, exhausted, I resigned my position as church pianist. At that point my husband was approached by at least one of the men of the church, and was told that he should order me to continue as pianist. This was my first real clue, as to the authoritative male dominance teaching in this church. Until that point, much of it was hidden.

Quote
TouchSmart
Thank you for your post. I am not able to use the "know them by their fruits" argument, with my husband and sons. The pastors of this Thieme offshoot church have already maneuvered around this argument by teaching that "fruits" refers to the "fruit of the lips", or "the doctrine" that a believer professes. These pastors teach that it is wrong to go around "fruit inspecting", and that believers set themselves up as judges, in doing so. So using that argument would just result in their calling me "arrogant" and "judgmental". Let me tell you, they have everything sewed up pretty tight! They are very authoritative, and when I questioned too much, and did not come under authority (i.e. obey my husband in everything), I was labeled as "unsubmissive." Soon after arriving at this church, I volunteered to be the church pianist, even though my skills were limited. The church was in need of an accompianist, and apparantly no one else had the ability, or was willing to volunteer. About seven years later, exhausted, I resigned my position as church pianist. At that point my husband was approached by at least one of the men of the church, and was told that he should order me to continue as pianist. This was my first real clue, as to the authoritative male dominance teaching in this church. Until that point, much of it was hidden.

To Touchsmart:

What they are doing is a wrong false authority and they cloak thier deceit under cart blanche "pay no attention to that little authority conflating man behind that curtain". Make no mistake about authority, it is by all standards a cults conflation of false corrupt human authority falsely mixed with the perfect authority of G-d for thier personal agenda.

Three key decision translations lead to this type of corruption in thiemite cult churches(of which most of I have previously posted):

1)

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:

Another "Decision Translation" shown before on this forum, is worth repeating with additions. [forum.culteducation.com]

Understanding God's Government By Paul W. Syltie quote: "All Authority Inserted into Titus 2:15: The KJV reads: "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee". In English, it sounds like Paul is telling Titus that he has "all authority" over the brethren-as a king or dictator might. The Greek words for "all authority" are pas and epitage. The latter word is used five other times in the New Testament (Rom 16:26, 1 Cor 7:6.24; 2Cor 8:8, 1Tim1:1, Tit1:3). In all these cases epitage is translated "commandement" and refers to a commandement of the Eternal. The incorrect use of "authority" makes it sound like Titus was the rebuking authority, not the Eternal commandments. Also, the Greek pas is translated "every" 117 out of 1.243 times. When pas is used with a word that trepresents a "class of items", pas refers to "every itme in the class." This verse would be much more consistently translated if it said "rebuke with every commandment". Titus was correct the brethren using every commandement of the Father and Christ. [books.google.com]


There are 7 verses in the New Testament which use epitage. In 6 cases epitage is traditionally translated "commandment", in reference to the commandment of G-d.

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting G-d, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Notice Pau's rhetorical nature. Does that sound like someone who speaks with "all authority"? Paul speaks with permission , in this case.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Again notice the rhetorical nature of Paul. Paul makes distinction between "my judgment" and "commandment of the Lord". Also, notice that when Paul says he gives his judgment it is done so by having obtained the mercy of the Lord to be faithful. Not deceitful for an extremist political agenda, but faithful.

2Co 8:8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.

Again notice the rhetorical nature of Paul making distinction between Paul's "words", and the commandment of G-d.

1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of G-d our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

Tit 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of G-d our Saviour;

Tit 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.

In all these cases epitage is used of the "commandment of G-d" If you notice the entire chapter of Titus 2, it is a list of commandments not of Paul, but of Jesus. So it appears Syltie the logic is sound and consistent with other Biblical directions. Syltie does make the error of saying " The latter word is used five other times in the New Testament (Rom 16:26, 1 Cor 7:6.24; 2Cor 8:8, 1Tim1:1, Tit1:3).", but you can see 6 other verses are listed in the same sentence, instead of 5. And it is 1 Cor 7:25, not 1 Cor 7:24.

Also, pas after "every item in a list" can be translated "every".

I think, Titus 2:15 with "pas epigate" should read: "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with every commandment (of G-d )". In this case, Paul doesn't say speak with all permission (Suggnome [bible.crosswalk.com]), Nor does Paul say speak using "judgment" Gnome [bible.crosswalk.com] , but speak, exhort, and rebuke (to the sheep you are equipping) with every commandment of G-d. These are commandments of G-d, not Paul, in the prior list in Titus.

With all of Thieme's "corrected translations", rewordings of the Bible, and "greek training", shouldn't Thieme have noticed this? Shouldn't have Thieme mentioned this? Not if "it fits your agenda".

Who has "all authority" in any case? Is that not G-d? Does not satan "an angel of light" and his false teachers seek "all authority" and dominion? through the Bible and any other means?

2 Corinthians 1:24 King James Bible "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
I have more proofs on Thieme's myth of Reich Pastor later...

Don't trust me. Test me.


Truthtesty

2)

Quote
Truthtesty
Hello TouchSmart:

You might find this interesting from Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson :"...When it comes to Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22, we have two distinct translation decisions at work in most English Bibles:

The first is that English translations take the idea of submission from the verb in 5:21 and create an imperative form of the verb in 5:22, which has no verb.

The second is that English translations tend to treat 5:21 and 5:22 as separate units, with no real connection to each other.
The separation of 5:21 and 5:22 into separate units demonstrates the sometimes misleading consequences of dividing Biblical books into chapters and verses. In the earliest Greek manuscripts, there were no spaces between words and no punctuation at all. This means that there were no separate sentences and paragraphs.
All of the punctuation, and the division in sentences, verses, and chapters were added over time. Sometimes, the divisions into sentences, chapters, and verses make logical sense. Other times, these divisions separate what were clearly intended to be whole units.
The division of Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 is one of the most dramatic examples of dividing what was clearly intended to be a whole thought. 5:22 is a phrase without a verb. The idea of submission comes from 5:21, in which submission is "to one another."
It is simply irresponsible and misleading to take the idea of submission from 5:21, turn it into an imperative addressed only to women in 5:22, and then disconnect the idea from 5:21. Yet, this is exactly what many English translations do..."
[ezinearticles.com]
[biblos.com]

All the information necessary to debunk Thieme's myths is on this website. You'll need to dig and sift for gems, but they are here.
Other than the input and experiences of others commenting, I would say two key sources are: 1) The critiques and summaries of Dr. Wall"s doctoral dissertation [withchrist.org] and 2) the collected information by mostly orange on 4share [www.4shared.com]

We all here were through some experience similar to yours some worse some better. Some say Berachah is just a destructive church. I know better. It is a cult. If these "thiemite" teachers are teaching Thieme's false cult doctrine of "Right pastor", then they are following Thieme's cult doctrine because The false doctrine of "Reich pastor" is what defines Thieme as a cult. All christians are to submit one unto another and that includes pastors, teachers, and everyone. Eph. 5:21 Jesus the Head of the Church, would be considered the highest theological expert, yet Jesus was subject to all "Luke 22:27 "For whether is greater he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth is not he that sitteth at meat but I am among you as he that serveth" [biblos.com] I highly suggest searching Dr. Wall's .pdf dissertation above for "right pastor".

Here is an example of Dr. Wall's dissertation: "...At no time does Scripture exhort the believer to single out one particular teacher as his final doctrinal authority. On the contrary, there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ..."

Thieme's false myth of reich pastor was a false identification with corrupt Gentile (US military Ellington Air Force Authority) authority of a corrupt creature, when the true identification should always be Holy Spirit inspired in faith with the view being the perfect authority of the Jesus in your "old man's" co-death with Jesus and the new "co-life" resurrection with Jesus. Some say the Holy Spirit repetitively and gradually in time removing the "old man" and "putting on the new" is spiritual growing. Test it for yourself.

In one respect you are lucky because years of study have already taken place to debunk Thieme. The first thing I suggest is to do what is necessary to get yourself in order. You can deal with others much more effectively if you go through successful changes for yourself first. Ultimately no one can make anyone elses mind up for anyone else. You can lead with truth though.

I think 1st one exercise is to ask your family to explain the meaning of the "Blood of Jesus" as it relates to 1 Cor. 15:17. If (as the Apostle hypothetically states) Christians were still in their sins after the death of Jesus(if He had not been raised then death alone did not resolve sin), then obviously since the "Blood of Jesus" purifies against sin then the "Blood of Jesus" continued AFTER His Death on the Cross. This is simple and quick. Ask them to compare that simple verse 1 Cor. 15:17 and the "Blood of Jesus" with Thieme's myths about the "Blood of Jesus".

Regardless of what I or anyone says you should be like the Bereans and test.

Welcome,

Truthtesty Truthtesty@hotmail.com

3)

Thieme's false spiritually imprisoning concept of "Reich pastor". Dr. Wall has spoken of this many times in his dissertation (Dr. Wall equating Thieme's Thieme's false right pastor with Diotrophes, etc... [withchrist.org] ). I also have posted on this many times. As Jesus the highest human authority came to serve, it is an ultimate arrogance of Thieme to sugggest that Thieme's authority is "greater" than you and your spiritual self sufficiency. This false arrogant authority "fruit" is clearly incorrect and spiritually retarding and unhealthy.

1 Peter 5:5-6 says 5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Thieme's false Diotrophes doctrines etc...


4)

Also the thiemite false concept of the Blood of Jesus is spiritual imprisonment, which cloaks the the real truth. The Blood of Jesus is central to everything Christian.

As Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote:

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110 Quote:
Quote:
As has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely,What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ?


I also have peviously posted on this:

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:

As I stated before the Hebrew mind clearly believed the literal shed blood was the actual life thereof. They are one in the same to the Hebrew mind. Simple - the blood is shed with the life and the body dies. So? the life is in the blood because that is what came out of the body as the body died. So? Now where does that life go? The blood goes into the hereafter - The afterlife. Blood is seen as literal blood and life - one in the same - and it is alive and the blood speaks and goes into the afterlife. Don't eat the blood because it is a life. That was probably Hebrew advanced science/belief at the time.

"For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul." Leviticus 17:11, also see Leviticus 17:12, 14; Hebrews 9:22; Genesis 9:4, etc...

The sacrifice for sin was not complete on the Cross as the Apostle Paul clearly states in I Corinthians 15:17 "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." If Jesus had only died that was not enough. Since the "Blood of Christ" purifies/cleanses against sin (I John 1:7, etc ...) then the Blood of Christ clearly is not representative analogy of "death" alone, as so many such as Stibbs, Morris, nazi Behm etc... claim. see Blood of Abel speaking from the ground, see Blood of Jesus speaketh better things than Abel Hebrews 12:24, Genesis 4:10, etc...

Therefore I Corinthians 15:17 proves CONCLUSIVELY the Blood of Jesus as the Ressurected Life of Jesus continues after the Death on the Cross, because only the Blood of Jesus can purify against sin AND IF sin would have continued after the Death of Jesus if Jesus had only died without Ressurection, THEN clearly the Ressurected life/Blood of Jesus was necessary to cleanse against sin after the Death of Jesus on the Cross.
[interlinearbible.org]

As a matter of fact I have not seen any theological scholars ie Morris, Stibbs, Walvoord etc... (in the documents pertaining to this thread), address I Corinthians 15:17.

Also, it is worth noting that Biblos internlinear Bible translates "euramenos" in Hebrews 9:12, as "having found" not "having obtained". The overwhelming usages of the root word "heuriskó" is "find"/"found".
[interlinearbible.org]

Hebrews 9:12 and Hebrews 9:28 are spoken with foreknowledge of the success of the Ressurection, and Paul clearly qualifies the Atonement in Corinthians 15:17 if Jesus is not raised from His Death, then ye are yet in your sins.

From the Biblical theology of the Hebrew mind/view, the literal Shed Blood of Jesus, which is the Life of thereof Jesus was Shed to make Atonement for your souls. And in Ressurection the Blood of Jesus which was the life thereof Jesus came alive from Death of Jesus to rise THROUGH the Holy Spirit into the presence of G-d for us. Hebrews 9:13–14. “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

So how does one explain I Corinthians 15:17 in relation to Hebrews?
I would say the Blood of Jesus is eternal, therefore His offering of Himself is eternal, but the sin is gone when Jesus returns again. If it were just the death on the Cross without the Ressurection offering by Jesus into the presence of G-d for us, the whole offering would have been insufficient. I Corinthians 15:17. The foreknown Ressurection is part of the process of the "once for all" Atonement, which is in contrast to the "many yearly atonements" of Old Testament High Priests.

Also, Walvoord does also state in the same Wall citing: "The problem is exceedingly complicated, but a number of facts help to demonstrate that Christ never offered His blood in heaven, the sacrifice being complete on the cross. The high priest of the Old Testament must be regarded as having completed the sacrifice on the altar, the entrance with the blood being merely an application of the sacrifice . . . It was a means of entrance rather than a completion of the sacrifice itself . . . While the blood was brought into the holy of holies, it was not in a sacrificial sense . . . The high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies on the ground of a completed sin offering on the altar . .. ." [withchrist.org]

With all due respect to Dr. Wall and Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Walvoord is mistaken here. Let us not just talk of any High Priest, but specifically Aaron, whose brothers died before Aaron. See the entire chapter Leviticus 16. Now Aaron is learning specifically how to do G-d's will in the Holy of Holies without dying like his brothers did. Also see specifically see Leviticus 16:27: "The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement , must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up."

When Leviticus 16:27 says whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement , I think that most sane people would agree that the blood from that sin offering was sacrificial blood and it was presented in a "sacrifical sense" in the Holy of Holies, to make Atonement, not just as Dr. Walvoord suggests as a "means of entrance"/"allowed to enter".

The sacrificial blood was brought into the presence of G-d "to make Atonement".

And the one eternal offering of the Blood of Jesus continues today.

Truthtesty

It is also worth noting, this Thieme quote from the Thieme booklet "The Barrier":

Thieme quote: "Your first and foremost purpose is to take in Bible doctrine under the ministry of your right pastor-teacher and grow to spiritual maturity (2 Pet. 3:18.

Thieme quoted 2 Pet. 3:18 in nearly every reeducation class, but not in it's spiritual context.

Where does it say anything about a "right pastor" in 2 Peter 3:18? It doesn't.

Here's what 2 Peter 3:18 actually says: "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

Note Thieme's reference of 2 Peter 3:18 as applicable to the church age. Most coerced thiemites would not disagree with Thieme's dispensational usage of Peter as applicable to current church dispensational christians. So I'll show another biblical verse in Peter to prove once again Thieme's concept of "Reich pastor" is false:1 Peter 5:3 "nor yet as lording(katakurieuo) it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock"Note the use of kurieuo. In particular I contrast and compare 2 Cor. 1:24 with Luke 22:25 Which shows a direct contradiction of Thieme's false claim of having spiritual authority over your faith for spiritual growth. There is no "military chain of command" and no "lord it over" authority of a pastor because of Bible doctrine between the believer and God. The learning of Bible doctrine is not an issue, because as 1 John 2:27 states: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

2 Corinthians 1:24 - Not that we lord it(kurieuo) over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.

The same greek word kurieu is used in Luke 22:25 Lu 22:25 - And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it(kurieuo) over them; and those who have authority over them are called'Benefactors.' 26 "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.

1 Peter 5:5-6 says 5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

It says "Yea, all of you be subject one to another,..." That includes christians with pastors gifts and christians with teachers gifts.

In direct contrdistinction to Thieme's false concept of "Super Grace, ultra Super Grace, super duper duper super grace etc... ad nauseum", Dr. Chafer said it is not a matter of being "more gracious" because christians are already "in a sphere of grace":

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 3, Page 257: a. ACCESS INTO HIS GRACE. Divine grace in action is that achievement which God is free to undertake because of the satisfaction respecting sin which Christ provided by His death and resurrection; therefore, access into the grace of God is access into the value of His finished work. This door is open to all; but only those who have believed have entered in. Of this position which Christ procured, it is written: “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5:2). The believer is not only saved by grace (Eph. 2:8), but he stands in grace. He is ensphered in divine grace. The same grace that saved him sustains him. The same principle upon which he is saved when he believes, is continually applied to him for safekeeping throughout his earthly pilgrimage. Of the ensphering grace, Peter wrote these words, “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). The thought seems to be that the Christian, being in grace, is appointed therein to grow in the knowledge of Christ. Certainly no one who has not found entrance into divine grace through faith, will grow. It is not a matter of growing more gracious, but of coming to know Christ, which knowledge is possible since the believer has entered the sphere of grace (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18).

2 Peter 3:18 mentions nothing about a "right pastor". And if you look at the end of it it says "Amen". To me that looks like a prayer (and by the way test everything I say and everything everyone else says "1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good").

And what does the Bible say about prayer? 1 Thessalonians 5:17 it says pray without ceasing. That seems to be the "first and foremost purpose", not a one-way submission to Thieme's false claim of authority over your faith. Personal prayer in faith by which you stand is obviously a higher priority than a pastors or teachers rhetoric.

It is important to get the context of a verse by reading a few verses before and a few verses after. Thieme quite often claims a "backup reference" ie "2 Peter 3:18" as backup proof to his "rhetoric". However when you actually slow down and research it it is usually myth and taken out of context.

Christians are to submit "one unto another" that includes christians with pastor and/or teacher gifts. A Pastor in no way has "one way only" gentile authority over your faith, but that is exactly what thiemites claim is a non-seperation of authority from the pastor executed over all other christians faith. It is simply not true.

As Dr. Wall states: "...Second, the entire process that Thieme propounds can be reduced to one
phrase: Be positive toward and believe what is taught. Not only does this concept dangerously produce a blind dependency on a pastor-teacher, but it fails to encompass the clear scriptural pattern for growth. Paul's classic passage on spiritual maturity, Ephesians 4, indicates two aspects of the process that Thieme has overlooked. First, verse 16 teaches that spiritual growth takes place through the contact and interaction of the members of the body of Christ, as every spiritual gift in the body functions and ministers to other gifts. Second, the subject of "speaking the truth in love" in verse 15 is "we." In the context this means the whole body of believers.

Not only does the process of spiritual maturity involve all of the members of the body ministering to one another, but the biblical pattern requires application of truth, not only as a result of maturity but as a part of the process of growing itself. Christ taught that a volitional decision to obey God's will would result in discernment (John 7:17). He also taught that the building of our spiritual house and its stability depends upon acting upon the teachings of Christ (Matt. 7:24-27). Also the writer of Hebrews taught that a key element in spiritual maturity is the discernment between good and evil, and he indicated that practical exercise (hexin) was necessary to develop mature discernment. The maturing process is not sitting under a particular, authoritative pastor-teacher every night of the week and responding with positive faith. It is the loving communication of the truths of God's Word by all of the members of the body, expressing the particular illumination that the Holy Spirit gives to each person in accordance with his particular gift. The pastor-teacher and the evangelist (Eph. 4:1 lb) are to equip the saints (all believers) with the tools for personal Bible study and application; the saints, in turn, carry out the work of service for the purpose of building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). Each individual Christian grows as he responds to the truth so communicated to him. That response includes both attitude changes and overt actions. Thieme's GAP approach is totally off-balanced. Not only does it fail to enhance true spiritual growth, it actually can inhibit true growth by giving the believer a false sense of maturity, not unlike the "puffed up" believer in I Corinthians 8: 1. ..." [withchrist.org]

Any "charge" of G-d given unto pastors teachers or christians in general is a "leading/guiding by example". Thieme puts up a "false authority blockage" between you and your personal relationship with G-d.

If you'll notice Miles J Stanford spoke of how Thieme (Chafer partially) completely missed the "not I, but Christ" and the transfiguration of christians into the image of Jesus, in 2 Cor. 3:18 from "glory to glory" as the Holy Spirit sheds the "old man" and puts on the "new man".

2 Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

"where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty", not Adolph Hitler's authority. (Not joking see "Hitler's Theologians" one of them being Gerhard Kittle which Thieme literally used as a backup for Thieme's attack on the "Blood of Jesus". Which I debunked)

Also, Stanford speaks of the error of Chafer's "instant spirituality" 1 John 1:9 and Thieme's extreme error on instant spirituality.

[withchrist.org]


1 cor. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

"...freely given to us..."

1 john 2:27 KJV "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

1 John 4:16 ESV "So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."

John 14:16 KJV And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

"...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty..."
1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1, is important for the Christians personal power. You have the power to believe or not to believe, you should not relinquish that power to anyone. And specifically you should not submit that power to any thiemites false authority. Nor should a false dependency be developed to mask insecurities about personal faith by intentional self-obusification by coercion to submitting to Thieme's (or any thiemites) mythical authority. Thiemites do that.

Also, Thieme regularly referenced Jeremiah. But Jeremiah 31:34 says "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Did the Lord in Jeremiah 31:34 say "For I will send them a pastor teacher for them to know me" No. It says "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

It is also important to focus more on Jesus' perfect Words versus Paul's questionable words. And when there is a conflict between those words I suggest careful research and siding with Jesus' words over Paul's words. If your not sure about an area it may be necessary to suspend belief/withhold prejudice in that area until the issue is researched and the conflict is resolved, instead of irresponsibly submitting to a false cramming of endless false rhetoric and the false gentile authority of and by a false cult thiemite.

Truthtesty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2011 02:13AM by Truthtesty.

Quote
TouchSmart
Thank you for your post. I am not able to use the "know them by their fruits" argument, with my husband and sons. The pastors of this Thieme offshoot church have already maneuvered around this argument by teaching that "fruits" refers to the "fruit of the lips", or "the doctrine" that a believer professes. These pastors teach that it is wrong to go around "fruit inspecting", and that believers set themselves up as judges, in doing so. So using that argument would just result in their calling me "arrogant" and "judgmental". Let me tell you, they have everything sewed up pretty tight! They are very authoritative, and when I questioned too much, and did not come under authority (i.e. obey my husband in everything), I was labeled as "unsubmissive." Soon after arriving at this church, I volunteered to be the church pianist, even though my skills were limited. The church was in need of an accompianist, and apparantly no one else had the ability, or was willing to volunteer. About seven years later, exhausted, I resigned my position as church pianist. At that point my husband was approached by at least one of the men of the church, and was told that he should order me to continue as pianist. This was my first real clue, as to the authoritative male dominance teaching in this church. Until that point, much of it was hidden.

To Touchsmart:

Also:

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer: Vol. 3, Page 28: A summarization of the doctrine of New Testament priesthood is given by Dr. C. I. Scofield thus:
... (b) praise to God, “the fruit of the lips that make mention of His name” (R.V.), to be offered “continually” (Heb. 13:15; Ex. 25:22; “I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat”)..."

Now "Ye shall know them by their fruits" in contrast to the "fruit of the lips":

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer: Vol. 4, Page 223: (9) Warning Against False Prophets. “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:15–20). The warning here is against false prophets who are to be discerned by the quality of their lives. The warning to the children of God under grace is against false teachers who are to be discerned by their doctrine concerning Christ (2 Pet. 2:1; 2 John 1:7–11 ): never by their lives; for outwardly, false teachers are said to appear as the “apostles of Christ,” and to be directly under the power of Satan who himself appears as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:13–15). The attractive personality of the false teacher affords great advantage as a background for the appeal he makes for his doctrine..."
Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Note: In 2 John 1:9 it says "didache tou christou" "teaching of christ" not "doctrine of christ".

[interlinearbible.org]

Truthtesty

Truthtesty

Are you willing to share your contact info? I would love to pick your brain. It think it would be a healing experience if those of us who are in Houston could get together.

Quote
UnabashedlyChristian
Truthtesty

Are you willing to share your contact info? I would love to pick your brain. It think it would be a healing experience if those of us who are in Houston could get together.

Hello UnabashedlyChristian,

I can be reached privately at Truthtesty@hotmail.com .

I am no longer in Houston. I live about 6 hours away.

I do agree that a group that could gather together could be a very healthy thing, though.


Truthtesty

I grew up as a Berachah Baby in the prep school. Rebound, 10 problem solving devices, 5 cycles of discipline, Imputation, Sin Unto Death, Reversionism, the whole shebang. I remember singing the Aggie War Hymn and the Battle Hymn of the Green Berets on Thursday nights. I remember a guy in my third grade class was made to hold the plank position for acting out ("fidgeting", most likely).

I left the church around the time I was allowed in the Auditorium (age 13). However, I could never really escape because my parents divorced around then (surprise, surprise; apparently Church 8 x a week was not conducive to working on a happy marriage). My mother married one of Theime's mentees. Shortly after, he whisked her off to start his own church (a Berachah offshoot). A few years later, he was up to replace Theime, but Theime's son got the job (duh). This guy didn't like that too much, I guess, so he took half of Berachah's congregation and started his own thing somewhere in Houston. Flash forward to now, about 15 years after they married. My mother is not who she used to be. She used to be warm and creative and spontanous, and with a wonderful sense of humor. Now she's cold, distant, works a job she hates that he won't let her quit (while he spends the day lounging in his robe, 'writing sermons' ie. day-trading). He has ridiculed my fiance, deleted emails I've written to my mother, and even convinced her to keep her breast cancer a secret from me. The list goes on and on. It's painfully obvious his agenda from day 1 was a total domination over her mind and soul. He has succeeded. In his defense he was a Berachah Baby too.

I am getting married soon, and she refuses to attend my wedding or speak to me - all because she must be submissive to her Right Man.

Yes, indeed, ye shall know them by their fruits (or lack thereof).

Om shanti, shanti, shanti

Just an FYI. I did contact Joe Wall about my situation and experiences with the Thieme off-shoot church. Dr. Wall emailed to inform me that although he does not agree with some of the Thieme doctrine, he is still friendly with a number of the pastors associated with Berachah, and interacts with them socially. Sad, (because of the harm those teachings have caused), but true.

Quote
agnosticchick
I grew up as a Berachah Baby in the prep school. Rebound, 10 problem solving devices, 5 cycles of discipline, Imputation, Sin Unto Death, Reversionism, the whole shebang. I remember singing the Aggie War Hymn and the Battle Hymn of the Green Berets on Thursday nights. I remember a guy in my third grade class was made to hold the plank position for acting out ("fidgeting", most likely).

I left the church around the time I was allowed in the Auditorium (age 13). However, I could never really escape because my parents divorced around then (surprise, surprise; apparently Church 8 x a week was not conducive to working on a happy marriage). My mother married one of Theime's mentees. Shortly after, he whisked her off to start his own church (a Berachah offshoot). A few years later, he was up to replace Theime, but Theime's son got the job (duh). This guy didn't like that too much, I guess, so he took half of Berachah's congregation and started his own thing somewhere in Houston. Flash forward to now, about 15 years after they married. My mother is not who she used to be. She used to be warm and creative and spontanous, and with a wonderful sense of humor. Now she's cold, distant, works a job she hates that he won't let her quit (while he spends the day lounging in his robe, 'writing sermons' ie. day-trading). He has ridiculed my fiance, deleted emails I've written to my mother, and even convinced her to keep her breast cancer a secret from me. The list goes on and on. It's painfully obvious his agenda from day 1 was a total domination over her mind and soul. He has succeeded. In his defense he was a Berachah Baby too.

I am getting married soon, and she refuses to attend my wedding or speak to me - all because she must be submissive to her Right Man.

Yes, indeed, ye shall know them by their fruits (or lack thereof).

Om shanti, shanti, shanti

Hey Agnosticchick,

Wow I completely empathize with your experience. I am not taking for story for granted, however, it's just sad that there are so many stories like yours from the "Thieme Park". Logically Thieme's influence should be wiped off the theological map, becuase the truth has exposed most of Thieme's myths. I and others have proven Thieme incorrect theologically in so many Biblical cases, that Thieme should have been laughed out of Biblical teaching altogether. It's a cult so logic and truth often just don't register with cult members.

I suggest reading the summaries conclusions and critiques in Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation on Thieme's teachings.

[withchrist.org]


For example here is an excerpt on Thieme fictitious Right man Right woman:
"Critique
The doctrine of right man-right woman is an interesting suggestion, and
Thieme, in his book on the subject, has done a very capable exposition to prove
the importance of remaining true to one's wife or husband. However, he has
completely failed to prove his thesis. To say that God made Eve especially for
Adam does not necessarily prove that there is only one woman for each man in
the world. Nor do the biblical warnings against infidelity or premarital
experimentation with sex lead one to the conclusion that there is only one mate
designed for each person. These warnings only serve to teach that the person to
whom one is married is the only right person to love sexually. These warnings
say nothing about the selection of a spouse.
The primary problem with Thieme’s approach, beyond his lack of biblical
evidence, is in the use of the word right. To label something or someone "right"
implies that all others are wrong. It adds an unwarranted moral dimension to the
issue of one's choice of a mate, moving such decisions from the realm of wisdom
to the area of moral choices. Furthermore, the use of the term right excludes all
possibilities for varying degrees of compatibility. One must conclude that a
couple is either perfectly compatible or they are wrong for each other. A better
set of terminology would include such terms as best, better, good, and poor
decisions relative to marriage, and would include such factors as the personalities
of the two, their degree of maturity, and the timing involved. The implications of
the Proverbs is that the choice of a spouse involves wisdom to make the best
selection, not special revelation to show one the right selection. Examples of this
emphasis on wisdom include the following: a man is to learn from his father
(Prov. 5:1, 2); he is to have a home where love is (Prov. 15: 17); he should look
for a woman whose virtues resemble the woman in Proverbs 31; and he should
avoid an adulterous woman (Prov. 5:3-5, 7-14) and a woman who has no clear
spiritual objectives (Prov. 5:6). This is a much different approach from Thieme's
overly romantic concept that each person is to look for that perfectly right
counterpart, so he can live happily ever after. From a biblical viewpoint the only
person one could call one's right man or right woman is the person to whom he is
married at that time (Prov. 5: 15-23).
An additional problem develops in Thieme's view of right man -- right
woman when one considers the contingent relationships between potential
marriage partners. Suppose that man A has a right woman, and she is woman A,
but while man A is waiting for woman A, woman A gets out of God's will and
marries man B. It would be possible then for a man to miss his right woman due
to no fault of his own. The absurdity of this situation is the result of faulty
thinking concerning the absolute character of God's will for the life of an
individual Christian. God's ultimate purposes have been set from all eternity, and
his divine decree is eternal; however, God's direction for the life of each
individual believer does not come in the form of a neatly packaged total plan. If
God were to have a perfect plan, in the absolute sense, for each man, no one
would ever experience
140
it, for every man is a sinner and repeatedly departs from God's direction. It is best
to view God's direction for the individual believer as guidance to make the best
decision possible. When they select their mates, young Christians should be
encouraged to make the best decision possible in accordance with the scriptural
principles and the illumination of the Spirit, as well as the counsel of spiritually
mature believers. After marriage, Christians should be taught that the one to
whom they are married is from then on clearly God's right man or right woman
for them.
Making an issue of the difference between the use of right and the use of
best may seem insignificant at first. However, the concept of a "right" spouse can
produce some very serious, harmful consequences. First, young people may enter
into marriage with an extremely romantic view that everything is going to go well
since they think they have found the right mate. When conflicts arise (as they
most certainly will), they may be tormented by the doubts that maybe they missed
their right spouse. Second, some young people may use this teaching to justify
premarital sexual relations to ascertain the "rightness" of their choice. Third, the
doctrine may prevent a married couple from seeking to find solutions to their
problems. Instead of recognizing emotional and spiritual immaturity in oneself
and instead of applying biblical principles to the specific problems that arise, a
couple may run from the real issues and blame their problems on a wrong choice
when they got married. Fourth, in this kind of context, divorce can easily be
rationalized, so one can go out to find his right mate.4
Thieme himself repudiates any view that would excuse divorce on the
basis of this doctrine. However, there will continue to be unbiblical applications
of the doctrine by many unless or until it is modified to agree with the scriptural
mentality."

It is worth noting that Right man Right woman is no longer published last I heard.


What is the name of the step father's church?

I can go on for hours. If you wish to email me directly truthtesty@hotmail.com

Also there's a pause after each "shanti" right? om shanti ... shanti ... shanti ...

Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2011 09:50AM by Truthtesty.

Thank you for the response. I don't find it necessary to name the stepfather's church. I felt instant remorse after posting, although I wasn't exactly sure why; I was merely expressing my thoughts and feelings, all valid. I came here seeking answers and support and, of course, I was concerned when I read all the claims that Berachah is a cult - and sickened to find the familiarity in the stories. I posted in anger and hurt feelings, and while I don't know for sure how or what goes on at home, my intuition tells me she must submit to his will, even if she doesn't feel right about it. What I know for sure is that I'm truly worried about my mother and have been for years. And now, it's the most horrible, powerless feeling not knowing if my messages are reaching her, to feel helpless, knowing it's my word against indoctrination. I suppose it's easier to believe she is a victim of mind control than to believe she no longer wants anything to do with me. The irony is I grew up to be everything she raised me to be, before he came around: independent, perceptive, skeptical, strong-willed, creative. I am who I am because of her. Anyway, I appreciate this forum for allowing me a voice, when I have been cut off from expressing the truth to the people who matter. I have learned valuable information here, while jogging several memories of my time at that church. I doubt I'll be checking back, as I have spent too much time already enmeshed in that soul-destroying worldview. I have my own life to get on with, my own family to grow and love. Om shanti was in reference to Eliot's final line of the Wasteland. The handle is because I truly don't know, but that's what this life is for- to search for answers, and I'm quite certain that if there is a God, S/He can be found in Love and not Doctrine. Peace.