Ephesians

1. Thieme/ Berachah is/was not involved in any way with what is commonly referred to as Dominion Theology. This is the theology that Christians must get involved with the political process to the extent that they are attempting to change the legislative landscape to prepare for "God's government" sort of conditions. Any one who implies that Thieme supports this theology is misrepresenting Thieme by 180 degrees. Berachah has always stood for complete separation of Church and State, and Thieme himself has extensively taught that such things as prayer in public schools and bombing of abortion clinics are a complete and total violation of this principle (re: several tapes in the Protocol Plan of God series (1984); I cannot recall specific lesson numbers)

2. That having been said, Berachah has always been heavily involved in support for the U.S. military. Thieme himself is a WWII Colonel, and his son, who is now pastor, is a Major who was an Airborne Ranger. In my opinion it is almost impossible to divorce themes of freedom through military victory from Biblical teachings, and Berachah has always reflected this same philosophy, and yes, in some cases, in very strong and dogmatic terms. For those that disagree, I really don't know what to say. Watch Schindler's List? Read some Solzhenitysyn? Read the Old Testament?
*******************************
Per Testy - I never heard Thieme speak of "Dominion Theology" true, (this is a bit of a straw arguement of your own) but Thieme's teachings were slightly different than what is commonly referred to as "Dominion Theology", although similar. Thieme regulary and with extreme [b:fbcf2b74f6][u:fbcf2b74f6]unbiblical [/u:fbcf2b74f6][/b:fbcf2b74f6]authority expressed his neocon political views from the puplit and mixed his political views with the message. Would you not consider it extreme if a pastor were to falsely teach the word mixed with his political persuasion? Don't lie did or did not Thieme have an overhead projector on which he had pictures of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran? AND did he not advocate the military destruction of those nations? This is the same advocacy of The Project for the New American Century. ((PNAC corporate think tank Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle (former attendee of Berachah), Libby and more of the Bush admin responsible for what's going on in the middle east today.)) AND did not Thieme advocate the destruction of Muslims because he determined them to be satanic? And why isn't this information on the Thieme website available for everyone to see?

Per Dr. Wall "It also seems that Thieme has [b:fbcf2b74f6]forced his political prejudices on the Scriptures under the guise of the doctrine of evil. [/b:fbcf2b74f6][b:fbcf2b74f6]For example, he claims that Israel's "waiting for good" in Micah 1:12 involved ignoring the word of God and [u:fbcf2b74f6]waiting for socialism.[/b:fbcf2b74f6] [/u:fbcf2b74f6]Keil and Delitzsch clarify what the phrase actually means in its context:
The inhabitants of Maroth writhe (chalah, from chul, to writhe with
pain, like a woman in childbirth), because they are also smitten with
the calamity, when it comes down to Jerusalem. Letov, "on account of
the good," which they have lost, or are about to lose.
In other words, the thrust of the passage is [b:fbcf2b74f6]not that the people of Maroth were evil for waiting for [u:fbcf2b74f6]socialism, [/b:fbcf2b74f6][/u:fbcf2b74f6]but that they were waiting as one writhing in pain on account of the loss of the good.

Per Dr. Wall "Another observation should be made relative to the doctrine of evil. [b:fbcf2b74f6]One of Thieme's determining factors, as to what is evil, is the issue of human freedom. Anything that abridges human freedom is evil. Thus, Thieme can [u:fbcf2b74f6]include many social and political movements and actions as evil[/b:fbcf2b74f6]. [/u:fbcf2b74f6]Though freedom can be looked upon as a blessing from God, there is no biblical basis to use it as a final determinative factor as to what is good or evil. [b:fbcf2b74f6]Thieme's condemnation of modern social legislation also should include a condemnation of Joseph in the Book of Genesis for his famine relief political action.[/b:fbcf2b74f6] Obviously, the divinely directed plan of Joseph restricted the freedom of the people of Egypt.

Per Dr. Wall In summary, we have seen that the primary problem with Thieme's doctrine of evil centers in his exegetical methodology that is, he forces his restricted theological definition of evil on many texts where it is inappropriate. [b:fbcf2b74f6]With his definition and this methodology, he frequently makes unjustified correlations between his own political persuasion and certain biblical passages.[/b:fbcf2b74f6]

Per Dr. Wall [b:fbcf2b74f6]The implications of this approach lean heavily in support of most right-wing political positions, thus forming a philosophical link between biblical Christianity and conservative politics.[/b:fbcf2b74f6]

Per Dr. Wall Of the three areas considered in this section, Thieme's approach to the interpretation of history is the most helpful. On the other hand, his concepts relative to the laws of establishment, the divine institutions and the priest nation have some serious weaknesses.
First, certain aspects of his doctrines of establishment and of the divine institutions are founded upon erroneous presuppositions which ignore some important biblical teachings concerning the expression of compassion through political and social avenues. One of Thieme's underlying presuppositions is that the divine principles of establishment must be understood in terms of that which provides the greatest political freedom for man's volition. There is a basic error in this kind of thinking. Freedom is not a virtue; rather, it is a blessing, like prosperity and peace. The virtues that are acknowledged in the Scriptures for the nation of Israel include such things as justice, righteousness, compassion, and loving service of God (Amos 4:1; 5:14, 15; Mic. 6:8; Dt. 6:4-15). However, [b:fbcf2b74f6]freedom is a blessing God may provide, and a blessing worthy of defending, but it is not in itself a virtue to be used as the final determinative factor in the decisions made by governments.[/b:fbcf2b74f6] [b:fbcf2b74f6]In fact, unbridled freedom can allow for the production of fruits that contradict Christian virtues. [/b:fbcf2b74f6][b:fbcf2b74f6]For example, the oppression of the poor, referred to in Amos 4:1, was the product of the sin nature of the wealthy,[/b:fbcf2b74f6] [b:fbcf2b74f6]exhibited in a free market place. It is readily admitted that liberty is highly desirable and government intervention is dangerous to the maintenance of political freedom. However, one needs to keep the emphasis on freedom balanced with the biblical teachings on
righteousness and compassion. [/b:fbcf2b74f6]Psalm 72 describes the ideal king as one who cares for the needy. Deuteronomy 24:19-21 contains the law of gleanings, God's method of providing for the poor in the nation of Israel. [b:fbcf2b74f6]Also, the law of the Jubilee Year in Israel provided for the control on an unbridled capitalism, so that land monopolies would not develop. [/b:fbcf2b74f6]A major argument presented by Thieme in support of his basic presupposition is that men can and will more readily respond to the gospel in a free society. The history of the early church is evidence to the contrary. Likewise, the history of the church in Ethiopia during the fascist oppression demonstrates the opposite. [b:fbcf2b74f6]The fact is that the church frequently grows more rapidly under persecution and the lack of freedom than it does in a free society[/b:fbcf2b74f6]. [b:fbcf2b74f6]Not only are parts of his doctrine of establishment based on an erroneous presupposition, but also [u:fbcf2b74f6]his teaching on the priest nation lacks firm scriptural basis.[/b:fbcf2b74f6][/u:fbcf2b74f6] [b:fbcf2b74f6]Thieme's view that the United States is God's priest nation for this generation has virtually no exegetical support.[/b:fbcf2b74f6] In fact, the only reference he makes is to God's appointment of Israel as a priest nation (Ex. 19:6). [i:fbcf2b74f6][u:fbcf2b74f6][b:fbcf2b74f6]The application of this reference to the United States is inappropriate; [/b:fbcf2b74f6][/u:fbcf2b74f6][/i:fbcf2b74f6]for Israel was theocracy, and the United States is not. The only other evidence he can suggest is
his own survey of history. [b:fbcf2b74f6]It is true that at different periods in history a certain nation or nations have been instrumental in providing freedom for the dissemination of the gospel and the teaching of the Word of God, but to call such nations priest nations is not only unsupportable biblically, it directly contradicts the New Testament. It is wrong to apply theocratic status to a modern nation. The church is God's theocratic people today (I Peter 2:5-10).173[/b:fbcf2b74f6]

Per Dr. Wall It should be acknowledged that certain specific parts of Thieme's laws of establishment rest on sound exegesis (e.g. capital punishment and a nation's right to internal and external protection, and much that he says is hard to disagree with practically. [b:fbcf2b74f6]However, in his teaching that freedom is a prime virtue, he fails to give a proper emphasis to justice for the oppressed and compassion for the helpless ( Dt. 10:18, 19; 27:19). [/b:fbcf2b74f6]Further evidence that freedom is a blessing and not a virtue can be seen in God's ending of Israel's freedom in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, not as a result of their having slaves, but because of their idolatry, immorality and injustice in direct disobedience to the Mosaic Covenant.

Per Dr. Wall In the second chapter ten doctrines, foundational to Thieme's teaching on the Christian life were considered. [b:fbcf2b74f6]Of these doctrines, certain ones stood out as highly questionable concepts. His view of Bible doctrine subtly allows a pastorteacher
to press his own personal interpretations and doctrinal systems with the same authority as the Scriptures themselves.[/b:fbcf2b74f6] It was noted also that Thieme's view of God's love as an anthropopathism cannot be accepted. Although his views of divine sovereignty and the angelic conflict are basically dependable, his analysis of the immaterial part of man forces far too much on the biblical terminology involved. Portions of his teaching on sin and evil, at first, appear to have some validity, but the problems raised by a careful word study of the terms involved, in comparison with the extensive implications drawn by Thieme in his system, leaves the entire teaching in this area open to question. It was also observed that Thieme's teachings with regard to the doctrine of grace and the people of God are basically sound except for his emphasis on a passive description of grace in human relations. [b:fbcf2b74f6]Finally it was shown that his analysis of what he calls "divine establishment" and the place of the military appears to be more of an expression of Thieme's own personal opinions and political and social prejudices, rather than the product of consistent, sound exegesis. This has resulted in an unbalanced view of social justice and freedom, an unwarranted description of the United States as a priest nation, and an overemphasis on the role of the military.[/b:fbcf2b74f6]

*************************
3. I think the idea that since Theime's job during WWII was to train soldiers on a U.S. base, this role must then be belittled since other men were in harm's way overseas, or that since Thieme did not attain doctoral status (by the way...he was accepted to DTS's doctoral program, but did not complete his work because of his call to Berachah), his teachings do not mean as much as those who have achieved doctoral status are straw-
men type logical fallacies that most people can see through as completely transparent.
***************************
PER TESTY - NO STRAW MAN ARGUMENT SIMPLE FACT. THIEME LACKS THE BALANCE OF BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY, WITH THE RESULT OF HUGE ERRORS IN TEACHING. [u:fbcf2b74f6]BUT[/u:fbcf2b74f6] IF ONE IS TO USE THE "TRANSFER AUTHORITY" OF DTS,(WHICH THIEME DID ON THE BACK OF HIS CHRISTIAN MANUALS FOR BIOGRAPHY) THEN YES DOCTOR WALL WOULD OUTRANK THIEME BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY OF A DOCTORATE DEGREE OVER A MASTERS DEGREE.

Per Dr. Wall -Categories. “Categories” is used by Thieme to refer to “Categorical teaching: the organization of principles of doctrine based on the comparison of Scripture with Scripture to determine doctrinal classification.” Another, or at least quite similar, term for categorical Bible study is systematic theology. The process of developing categories of doctrine that are then used in interpreting the Scripture frequently includes three elements that can result in faulty exegesis or unbalanced doctrinal emphasis unless checked by other methods. These elements
are (1) the establishment of categories according to the theologian's mental inclinations, (2) the coining and defining of terms that relate to the theologian's categories, and (3) the defining of biblical terms according to the theologian's categories. All three of these elements have some validity, but they can [b:fbcf2b74f6]produce interpretative problems unless kept in balance by historical theology, biblical theology, and the contributions and critical evaluation of other teachers in the body of Christ.[/b:fbcf2b74f6]
To avoid the abuse of interpretation by systematics (or categories) an
appreciation for the contributions of the theologians and interpreters of the past is needed, and should be communicated to the hearers of the teaching. Also, systematic theology should depend largely upon "biblical theology;" that is, the [i:fbcf2b74f6][u:fbcf2b74f6]study of the doctrines of Scripture according to the categories, emphases, terminology, context and place in the development of theology of the particular biblical writer.[/[/u:fbcf2b74f6][/i:fbcf2b74f6]b] For example, Thieme quickly thrusts I John 1:9 into his category of "rebound," but John's categories are "walking in the light" and "telling the truth in personal fellowship relationships." The absence of sound biblical theology, we shall see in a later chapter, has produced a mechanical, in-and-out, view of fellowship and spirituality, rather than John's concept of continual personal relationships.Unless checked, Thieme's methodology will likely produce more and more doctrinal error in the future. Thieme would be wise, therefore, to develop a relationship with some respected theologians who could discuss with him any new theological teaching he develops and could direct his attention toward insights from biblical theology and historical theology.

Per Testy - I was told by one of Thieme's lieutenants "when you finish the Marine Corps you can come back and join our army" Thieme was not "equipping" christians to be independent in thier personal word study. Far from from Thieme discouraged it. Thieme was a Lt. Col(not a Colonel) who trained soldiers. Thieme never saw a lick of combat. I did. I fully support my brothers on the ground, but I do not support Bechtel's, Halliburton's and other defense contractors fraud of the American taxpayers [www.foxnews.com]



****************************
4. Dr. Wall's thesis is actually very well written, though obviously, I don't agree with the conclusions of most of the topics. What is interesting to note, however, is that many people have apparently not even read the thesis, but enjoy using it in reference as a means of discrediting Thieme. For instance, the Blood of Christ section of the thesis simply outlines what Wall feels is a difference between what Wall feels is the correct view (that the term "Blood"should encompass all of Christ's work on the cross), and Thieme's view (the Blood should refer to only to the spiritual death of Christ during the last three hours of his crucifixion). I think it would come as a shock to many to discover that Wall actually agrees with Thieme in that Wall believes that 1. there was a spiritual death of Christ and 2. The term "The Blood" has been elevated to heretical status, and Christ's blood itself has no mystical properties. I think some people would be rather shocked if they actually read this dissertation, and realized that they might not be able to use it to attack Thieme as they have in the past.

(I tried to find the link to the thesis, to insert it here, but apprently cypressbible.org, the host, has removed it).
*********************
Per Testy - Here's the link [l.b5z.net]
I am not shocked at all that Dr. Wall agrees with Thieme on some issues. That's the reason I said Dr. Wall has proven MOST of Thieme's "doctrinal breakthroughs" false. But Thieme, as Dr. Wall has said in his dissertation, uses cult methods. The most aggregious cult characteristic was Thieme's non-biblical miseuse of autocractic authority. Thieme arrogates to himself unfounded authority by attacking the authority of the thought forms of the original authors by detracting from thier words and reducing thier message into Thieme's lacking "pregnant terminology"(loaded language). Thieme also attacks [u:fbcf2b74f6]AND CRITICIZES [/u:fbcf2b74f6]the authority of christian teachings essentially for the past 2000 years the authority of the Catholic church's teaching, the authority of the King James version's teachings, certainly the authority of every Liberal christian University, and THE AUTHORITY OF DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY THE VERY SEMINARY WHERE THIEME EARNED HIS CHRISTIAN TEACHING DEGREE. THIEME OFFICIALLY SEPARATED HIMSELF FROM DTS. SO WHERE DOES THIEME GET HIS AUTHORITY? THIEME ARROGATED AUTHORITY TO HIMSELF THE SAME WAY HE HAD DONE HIS ENTIRE LIFE. LIKE ALL CULT LEADERS THAT ARROGATE AUTHORITY TO THEMSELFS.
TO SOMEONE WHO UNWITTINGLY ACCEPTS WHAT THIEME IS SAYING IS TRUE, ISN'T THIS A FORM OF ISOLATIONISM? BEING UNABLE OR DISCOURAGED IN THIER OWN PERSONAL STUDY AND UNABLE TO RELY ON ANY OTHER CHRISTIAN TEACHER, DO THEY NOT HAVE A LACK OF A CHRISTIAN FUNCTIONAL DISCRMINATION OF BIBLICAL TRUTH SEPARATE FROM THIEME'S VIEW? PSYCOLOGICAL ISOLATION IS ANOTHER CULTIC TECHNIQUE. THIEME DID NOT ALLOW DOCTORS OF THEOLOGY TO DEBATE HIM AT BERACHAH(ANOTHER FORM OF ISOLATIONISM) THIEME DEFINTELY USED US VERSUS THEM MENTALITY BLACK AND WHITE VIEW OF THE WORLD - CULTIC. UNBALANCED VIEW OF CONFESSION (REBOUND MANTRA) - CULTIC. LOADED LANGUAGE - CULTIC. DOCTRINE OVER THE PERSON "IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND JUST LISTEN TO ANOTHER TAPE" - CULTIC. DEMAND FOR PURITY - SUPERGRACE - CULTIC THIS IS FALSE BECAUSE THIEME HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT NO ONE CAN SAY THEY HAVE REACHED SUPERGRACE (notice the extremes you can't study for yourself and you can't reach super-grace)
[www.refocus.org]

Truthtesty

Hi again Liberty,

Thanks for your response. The big problem I have in responding to your post is that there is no way to give an adequate response without resorting to getting into Biblical exegesis, which would lead me down a path that we are not allowed to take on these forums.

So, regarding rebound, I really can't get into an in-depth analysis of 1 John 1:9 and what its role is Biblically, without getting into something that isn't allowed here. Having said that, your description of Thieme's teachings of rebound are pretty accurate.

What I do want to try to do is clarify some things. And I'm sure you might be aware of some of these things, but some reading these posts may not be.

First, I do agree that Christians cannot learn Church Age doctrine without a good pastor. I don't think Thieme means that we cannot read stories in the Bible and get anything from them. Much of the Old Testament is based on a very basic spiritual life, and it's very easy to draw the lessons of obedience and faith from them. But, give Ephesians chapter 1 to 20 different Christians and you're going to get 20 different answers as to what everything in the chapter means. This is where I feel someone with this gift must be present to teach us. And there is a big difference between a guy with a pointy hat telling us what something means, and somebody who has had 9 years of school, exegeting the Greek, and teaching us in a way that our rational minds can see makes sense and pieces together.

Also, I want to clarify what Thieme is teaching in his "losers and winners" doctrine. It should be made clear that Thieme is [i:fcd6e84904]not[/i:fcd6e84904] teaching that some believers will be in any kind of state of sin in Heaven. This includes guilt, frustration, bitterness, sadness, etc. This would preclude any believer being in any kind of eternally upset state. Thieme teaches that we have no sin nature in heaven. Thieme also teaches that, [i:fcd6e84904]every[/i:fcd6e84904]
believer in Heaven will be eternally happy, have a resurrection body, live forever, and know "no sorrow, no tears, the old things have passed away".

What he tries to do in illustrating what waits for the believer who reverts (or to use the old Baptist term you used, "backslides") is, I believe, put things into terms which will motivate believers to keep on keeping on. Though there are obviously losers in time (while on Earth), I think Thieme uses terms like "loser" to describe a believer without rewards in Heaven in the same way the Bible uses terms like "nostrils", or "hatred" in anthropopathically describing God. Yes, Thieme teaches that there is definitely a kind of caste system going on in Heaven in which some believers will be at a higher rank than others determined by their Christian production on Earth, but besides perhaps a moment of shame at the Judgment Seat, I've never heard him infer that any believer will be in any state of torment or sorrow in the eternal state. I believe terms like "gazebo", “missing all the great parties”, "loser", "you'll be polishing the brass of those above you", "she'll have a mansion in heaven, you'll have a hut" are meant to put into human terms things that we can't understand about the eternal state. They are meant to motivate. Nobody really knows what heaven is going to be like, except that there will be levels of rewards in Heaven (according to Thieme's teachings). So his teaching might be summed up by this: there will be “levels of reward” in Heaven, but this just pertains to a status, it doesn’t infer that a loser will be miserable in heaven. Everyone will share in happiness in the eternal state, but eternity is a long time, and it’s important to emphasize, even if in dramatic terms, the necessity of earning these rewards.

I think this is important to note, because there are many teachers who actually do teach ( and I think Hodges might be one of them), that loser believers will be in some state of sorrow for eternity.

Also, I do find it a little bewildering that some attack Thieme for this position, which they feel is un-grace like and too heavy a burden to bear, when so many people bite Thieme's head off for being too [i:fcd6e84904]liberal[/i:fcd6e84904] with these teachings. There is a free-will Baptist church down the street from me that teaches that "backsliders" actually lose their salvation, hence will be burning for all eternity in hell. Never mind that you are supposed to be saved by grace, a few bad decisions and lack of repentance can cause you to burn for eternity. Some apply 1 John 1:9 as, not a mechanic of temporal fellowship, but as something that must be done as a pre-requisite to salvation. So not "confessing" you are a sinner along with your faith in Christ = sorry, going to hell. The Church of Christ church down the road from me teaches that, unless you are water baptized, you are not saved. Believed in Christ while going down in a plane crash but no water tank around? Sorry..eternal damnation.

So...I think you can see my point. Thieme just can't win for anything. All those attacks because he is too liberal and "grace-oriented", then he gets it from the other side by those who think that his teachings on rewards are "legalistic" and analogous to "the sword of Damocles".

Personally, I think Thieme's teachings are very grace-oriented and wonderful..they cause me nothing but peace and contentment, certainly not any kind of feeling that I have some unbearable weight to carry. You know, I grew up in a non-religious family, but felt a very strong desire to know God from a very young age. It took me a while to get anywhere, simply because everywhere I looked someone was demanding something from me: stop doing this or that, believe with all your heart and cry and have a saving "experience" or you're not really saved. I was so confused for so long, until I ran across Thieme. Here was someone who not only came with a message of salvation that is among the most grace-oriented of perhaps any church on the planet, but a pastor who actually had the years of study to teach the Bible. Is he perfect on every doctrine? I'm sure he's not. Was he one of the most educated, knowledgeable and tenacious ( I mean the guy [i:fcd6e84904]stood[/i:fcd6e84904] as our servant in that spot for 5-6 days a week, an hour at a time, for 53 years) teachers that I have ever come across? Absolutely.

Keep in mind, if we throw away Thieme's language, and scale everything down to its core, here's what we are really left with of Thieme’s fundamental message:

1. If you want to be saved, believe, in one moment of time in Jesus Christ, that He died for your sins. It doesn't matter how "much" you believe, just make the decision.

2. Use 1 John 1:9, which is simply citing your sins, privately, in your own mind, to God, whenever you sin. And this is not confession in the modern sense of the word, simply a quick naming of sins.

3. Find a good pastor, who knows Koine Greek to teach you (and it doesn't have to be Thieme, but it’s necessary to watch what doctrines are being taught). Personally, I feel Thieme is the best I’ve heard in my lifetime, but it is NOT a teaching of Berachah that he is the one and only. But at least find someone who teaches and studies, and not go for the 30 minute rah-rah-rah/speaking in mumbo-jumo once a week?

4. Grow in knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Word with daily study, with the outcome that, not only you receive eternal rewards, but that you become [i:fcd6e84904]content[/i:fcd6e84904]. Not that you swear some eternal allegiance to some cult, elevating it's leader to a god-like status, but that you grow as to become more compassionate, gracious, loving, not returning evil for evil, becoming a more relaxed and content person, able to truly love people and God as Christ's thinking becomes your thinking.

THAT is what Thieme teaches, and if he bent down over the pulpit and looked us in the eye and barked at us what LOSERS we had a chance of being if we didn't stick with it, it was not because he needed money in the bank, not because he wanted to control, not because he wanted to cause us fear, not because he needed warm bodies in the pews (there were times when the church attendance has been in the thousands, and times when there were maybe ten people there)...but because he [i:fcd6e84904] cared[/i:fcd6e84904] about his congregation and loved us, and wanted the best for us. After 20 years of following this ministry, these are the conclusions I have reached, and, believe me, I've thought it through very carefully.

ephesians,

Thank-you again for sharing your convictions. As you said, it can be difficult to hash out theological issues on a chat forum like this. If you would like to correspond by other means, I would be happy to discuss these matters further with you from the Scriptures.

There are several of your statements that I wish to address…

[i:bd174fe5af]First, I do agree that [b:bd174fe5af]Christians cannot learn Church Age doctrine without a good pastor[/b:bd174fe5af]. I don't think Thieme means that we cannot read stories in the Bible and get anything from them. Much of the Old Testament is based on a very basic spiritual life, and it's very easy to draw the lessons of obedience and faith from them. But, give Ephesians chapter 1 to 20 different Christians and you're going to get 20 different answers as to what everything in the chapter means. This is where I feel [b:bd174fe5af]someone with this gift must be present to teach us[/b:bd174fe5af]. And there is a big difference between a guy with a pointy hat telling us what something means, and somebody who has had [b:bd174fe5af]9 years of school, exegeting the Greek[/b:bd174fe5af], and teaching us in a way that our rational minds can see makes sense and pieces together. [/i:bd174fe5af][emphasis mine]

First of all, I would like to point out that nowhere in the entire Bible are we ever told that we have to learn from the “original languages.” Common sense would tell us that if this were such an essential requirement for Bible study, the Bible itself would have to tell us. Yet we never once see the Apostle Paul saying that his letters had to be studied in the Greek language, and that translations are not good enough. We never see him warning non-Greek-speaking people that they have to learn Greek before they can understand his doctrine. The apostles wrote in Greek simply because this was the prevalent language of the known civilized world at the time. There is nothing magical about this language; there are no mysterious secrets hidden in the “original koine Greek” that are not perfectly clear in our English Bible. The koine Greek language rapidly declined after the apostolic era, and by the third century, the most widely used Bible was the Latin Bible (the true Latin Bible, as opposed to the corrupted Catholic Vulgate, which appeared much later). There was also a Syrian version in wide circulation. The Old Latin Bible was the primary Bible used by true Christians such as the Waldensians and Vaudois during the Dark Ages, when the Roman Catholic Church had a strangle-hold on the continent of Europe. And the main catalyst for the Protestant Reformation and the overthrow of Romanist tyranny was that God raised up men like Tyndale, Coverdale, Luther, Olivetan, and others to translate the Bible into the languages of the common people. It was simple, common, uneducated Christians reading the Bible in English, German, French, etc., that brought the Catholic Church to its knees and set God’s people free. This was what produced the glorious history of countless martyrs and victory over religious persecution. These common Christians glorified God in the most inspiring ways, and were willing to lay down their lives for the right to have “God’s Book in their mother tongue.” They knew no koine Greek. They had no Greek lexicons. They heard sermons preached straight from a Bible in their own language. And they left a great Christian testimony that still inspires God’s people 500 years later.

The faithfulness, perseverance, and self-sacrifice of early American Christians are familiar to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of American history. And as they fought and suffered to win America’s independence, all they had to sustain them was their old English Bible. As America’s frontier expanded westward, the settlers, townspeople, and isolated families in small log cabins had only their English Bible. They had no Greek lexicons and no educated seminary graduate to teach them. Yet God used them and their sacrifices to build the great nation of religious liberty that we still enjoy 200 years later. 99.9% of the most faithful Christians throughout church history never knew koine Greek, never saw a Greek Bible or lexicon, and never heard any “Greek exegesis” during a sermon. If this is indeed such a vital requirement for Bible study, then God has been unfaithful to His people, because He did not provide this for them. ("Equal privilege" and "equal opportunity" just went out the window.) God has never commanded us to study from the original languages. And throughout history, the vast majority of His people have never even had access to the original languages. To say that a pastor needs to teach from the Greek is a fallacy.

This is the primary means by which Thieme convinces the people they can’t understand the Bible for themselves (and this is a major emphasis for him and other Thiemite pastors), and that they are dependent on his doctrinal system. The so-called “GAP” revolves around the pastor, rather than the people searching the Scriptures for themselves, which God commands [i:bd174fe5af]all [/i:bd174fe5af]of us to do. And the Romanist clergy used identical tactics at the time of the Reformation. The priests would constantly tell the common people that they couldn’t understand the Bible, and that they were dependent on the “doctors of theology.” They also told them that it was useless for them to read the Bible in their own language, because “Scripture can only exist in Latin.” Thieme uses the exact same method, except he says that the Bible can only exist in Greek and Hebrew. Yet he does not have a shred of Biblical or historical evidence to support this. Consider the following paragraph from [i:bd174fe5af]The History of the Reformation in England [/i:bd174fe5af]by the great 19th-century Christian historian J. H. Merle D’Aubigné:

[i:bd174fe5af]“But Scripture ought to exist in Latin only,” objected the priests. “No,” replied Coverdale again, “the Holy Ghost is as much the author of it in the Hebrew, Greek, French, Dutch, and English, as in Latin. ... The Word of God is of like worthiness and authority, in what language soever the Holy Ghost speaketh it.”[/i:bd174fe5af]

Consider all the great preachers and missionaries over the centuries—Hudson Taylor, David Livingstone, William Carey, D. L. Moody, Robert Sheffy, and so many others—and great leaders like George Washington, “Stonewall” Jackson, and Robert E. Lee, who exhorted their troops from the Scriptures, and converted many of their soldiers to Christ. And none of them ever taught from Greek lexicons and their own personal “corrected translations.” Yet Thieme and Thiemite pastors are dogmatic that you have study from the “original languages,” or you will not know the mystery doctrine, and you will surely be a “loser.” What folly. I would love to take some Thiemites back in time, so they can tell these great Christian men how “inaccurate” their teaching was. I would then take them further back in time so they can tell the great Protestant translators like Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Authorized Version’s translators like Lancelot Andrews and John Bois how “inaccurate” their translations were (even though God saw fit to use their English translations throughout the world for 500 years, winning far more souls to Christ than even the original Greek Bible did).

Most of the apostles themselves were “unlearned and ignorant men,” just humble fishermen. The exception would be Paul, and he considered all his education and scholasticism to be “dung.” They were simple men who wrote in simple language. They did not hide any mysterious secrets in a “perfect active indicative” or a “syntactical break.” God’s message for the human race is way too vitally important to be hidden in some convoluted technical system that only a language scholar with a seminary education can figure out.

It is true that God has provided pastors to help His people learn and grow. But there is no such thing as being “assigned” to a “right pastor-teacher” in the Bible (nor is there any such thing as one pastor running the show in the assembly). The people can listen to the pastor’s teaching, and be blessed by it. But their first responsibility is to search the Scriptures for themselves and hold their own convictions before God. Pastors can indeed be a great help to us, but there is no doctrine hidden from the common people that only the pastor can decipher. They are not helplessly dependent on the pastor for their understanding of Biblical doctrine (and Thieme dogmatically teaches that they are). All the great truths of salvation by grace, eternal security, union with Christ, spiritual growth, Christian living, etc., etc., can easily be found in the pages of an English Bible. God’s message is open and available for His people to read. Pastors have a gift for diligently studying, comparing Scriptures, and publicly sharing what they have learned with their brethren. They do not have some magical code for unlocking the secrets of the Bible that the rest of us can’t see. As for your comment about giving Ephesians 1 to twenty different people...you could also give the same chapter to twenty seminary-trained pastors spouting Greek and Hebrew, and still get twenty different interpretations. Your statement does nothing to prove that the people have to depend on the pastor.

John and I have written two books in which we expose Thieme’s Bible-correcting methods for what they really are—just another means of controlling the people. I would encourage you to read them.

Since this post ended up being rather long, I will further address the “winner-loser” issue next time.

Liberty

hi Testy -

You and I have such different worldviews that I think it would be difficult to engage in discussion regarding the military and what role a pastor should play in incorporating military themes into Biblical teachings without getting into an endless back and forth.

I did not listen to, nor have I attended the classes that you mentioned regarding Muslims and the Middle East, so I can't comment on those. I would have to hear the lessons and in what context the statements were made to be fair. Having said that, I personally think we are in a pretty serious situation with a psychopath currently running Iran, and military strikes to disable nuclear capabilities are something I am entirely for. I know you might disagree, but again, that is an argument that I think would be endless and counter-productive between us.

By the way, as I have stated before, Dan Quayle is not, and never was a member of Berachah. Marilyn Quayle's parents were/are. It's entirely possible he might have attended a service or two, but I have heard nothing regarding this. Don't believe everything you read.

The rbthieme, Berachah websites are not set up as avenues to post every single thing taught by the pastors. They are pretty basic, and really serve to direct people toward the pre-recorded tapes and publications.

As per Dr. Wall's dissertation, which you posted extensively from...Wall has not [i:519e0d61e7]proved[/i:519e0d61e7] Thieme wrong, as you dogmatically state. This thesis is just that, a thesis. It is Wall's ([i:519e0d61e7][b:519e0d61e7]one man's[/b:519e0d61e7][/i:519e0d61e7]) interpretation of Biblical passages and Thieme's teachings, and nothing more. As I stated before, Wall agrees with Thieme that Christ died a spiritual death on the cross. Do you have any idea how heretical this teaching is to so many Christians? There are sites out there that will practically damn you to hell for saying such a blasphemy. Now, if some theologian out there did his or her doctoral dissertation on how heretical Wall is for teaching this, along with extensive scriptural and historical support, would this doctoral candidate be [i:519e0d61e7]proving[/i:519e0d61e7] Wall wrong?

Again, the idea of using Wall's doctoral status as a means of seeking to prove Thieme's teachings must be lesser is transparently straw-man. If Thieme had gone on to complete his doctoral work (given his summa cum laude status upon graduation, I'm sure this would not have been difficult), and Wall did not due to a call to this or that church (an entirely plausible scenario), would Thieme's teachings automatically become the greater of the two due to his doctoral status?

One additional thing I need to add...Dr. Wall's thesis was written in the late '70's. Thieme has revised and changed so many doctrines in the 20 years since then, as to make several portions of his thesis moot. As an example, you mentioned Thieme's teachings of love..as of 2000 Thieme had come to teach that the love of God IS his integrity; they are synonymous. Anybody who left the church over 20 years ago has missed out on a lot. In some cases there are arguments going on over views that Thieme no longer holds, or has revised.

Berachah is a church, and was founded to teach, not to debate everybody with a differing opinion. One problem with debating is that the person who wins a debate is the best debater, simply that. It doesn't mean he is "right". The winner may be better at recall of facts, mastery of debating techniques, ability to think quickly, ability to re-route their opponent..I could go on and on with this. There is a very well known man on the internet who is a former pastor turned atheist, who currently has ten years worth of archives of his writings on the net which challenge the idea of Biblical inerrancy. He knows more about the Bible than most seminary graduates. He has engaged in more in-person debates than I can count, mostly with Christian pastors and evangelists, and he pretty much skins alive every opponent in every debate. Does this make him right?

How would holding debates in a Church, which introduce ideas counter to the pastor's teachings, be of any benefit to anybody? The general public is very easily awed in public debates due to the aforementioned techniques, regardless of "truth". If you are talking about the open and free exchange of ideas, all you have to do is turn on a computer or read a few books to find challenges to Thieme's teachings. You know, us "Thiemites" are not all sheep out here. I enjoy taking the time to read whatever comes my way, I have taken comparative religion courses, studied just about every denomination of Protestant Christianity out there, been in countless friends churches, , read just about every piece of anti-Thieme literature out there (and "studied" it), I have even *gasp* read the Bible for myself. I don't feel at all any kind of pressure in which I'm going to implode from any psychological stresses or demands, I feel like I am the kind of person that always keeps on open and rational mind. I came to Thieme because I want to know God, and I think he's the best teacher out there. It's that simple.

Speaking of time, I should probably get back to my family life, which has been suffering due to spending a little to much time on this thing :)...I might not be around as much from here on out, but I have enjoyed talking with you both (testy and liberty), and look forward to viewing any additional comments you have to make.

Take Care.

Ephesians,

It would be helpful IF DOCTORS OF THEOLOGY around the world agreed with Thieme (in koine greek) but they don't. Dr. Wall, Dr Waite, Dr. Custer, Dr. Zodhiates etc...

Ayrrh there's the rub if someome must only listen to someone who can translate KOINE greek to learn, what happens if the Doctors of Theology(who translate KOINE greek) disagree? What happens then? Do you just turn to the loudest one, the braggert? Do you just turn to the one who has cult characteristics like all other cult leaders? Do you just turn to the one who arrogates that he is the only one that has the truth and slams it down your throat? OR do you compare what they all have to say? OR do you rely and pray to God open the book yourself and start from where you are in Jesus name?
This is the failed logic of those who say the Holy Spirit's teaching is limited to those only to those who teach through Koine greek.

This is just one of Thieme's problems. Thieme is saying the Holy Spirit will teach better if you come to class. I don't think so! I don't think the Holy Spirit G O D waits on Thieme to start teaching and certainly the Holy Spirit is not going to limit the quality of the Holy Spirits teachings based on Thieme. Bottomline Thieme does not command the Holy Spirit.
What if Thieme is sinning while he's teaching? What then? What if Thieme is flat out wrong? what then? ad infinidem...

By the way I didn't see any rules against posting biblical exegesis on this forum. This is typical of Thiemites who claim they have the "TRUTH", but when it comes down to proving it or debate well .... I really have the truth, but gotta run..."
Thieme never defended himelf, because he knew his exegesis would not stand up under the light of truth and it didn't stand up. Thus the need to build cultic walls around his false teachings to protect it from being questioned.

Dr. Spiros Zodhiates [www.biblesoftonline.com] said of Thieme's THEORY on the physical death of Jesus "UTTER HERESY.... I cannot in anyway either as a student of the word of God or as a native-born Greek, having delved into the New Testament Greek as well as the classical Greek for my entire life, accept the THEORY of Mr. Thieme. In my opinion, his THEORY is entirely erroneous and misleading and without any support in the word of God."

Dr. Zodhiates has published (to the public) many books on biblical word study, while Thieme only publishes "in-house". Dr. Zodhiates allows and champions the constructive criticism of the entire public, while Thieme allows no constructive criticism. As a result, Dr. Zodhiates has earned several honorary doctorates, while Thieme has earned none.(loser) Thieme did not challenge and champion the truth of other christian pastors and theologians who disagreed with him. Instead Thieme resorted to verbal assasination of other christians, church leaders, and doctors of Theology(even though Thieme never earned his own doctorate.) and called those who constructively criticized him - satanic.

There are more books but here are a couple
[www.amazon.com]*
[www.amazon.com]

Thieme offers free booklets, but they are also a tax deduction. One little other thing Thiemites hardly mentions that Berachah is a very rich church. They sold part of the church property to the Galleria Mall. So win Thieme says he doesn't need your money, he doesn't. Berachah church is loaded.


**** Doctrinal critique - "What's wrong with the teaching of R. B. Thieme, Jr.?" by Dr. Stewart Custer 25 page booklet. Tell your local library the title - What's wrong with the teaching of R. B. Thieme, Jr.? By Stewart Custer. Then tell them the symbol for the the title for the oclc inter-libray loan system at your local library. The symbol is SGB. The title is located at the Mack Library at Bob Jones University, Greenville, SC 29614.

**** Doctrinal critique - BOB THIEME'S TEACHINGS ON CHRISTIAN LIVING by Dr. Joe Layton Wall
[www.msnusers.com]

"...Thieme has no biblical theology. His doctrinal categorical system is entirely systematic theology. When Thieme questioned me about my reference to biblical theological issues in the critique in my dissertation, I asked him if he knew what biblical theology was, and he responded by a description of some systematic theological categories used in historical theology. So apparently he had never been exposed to the discipline biblical theology. This does not in itself render all of his teachings false, it just makes any of so-called "doctrinal breakthroughs" extremely suspect."

**** Doctrinal critique - "The False Teachings Of Pastor R. B. Thieme, Jr." by Rev Robert G. Walter. 103 pages. Go to [www.biblefortoday.org] Search under "Author" - Walter, Rev. Robert. Book can be ordered by credit card. Copyright 1972 The book is edited by Dr. D. A. Waite ( Dr. Waite graduated with high honors, as valedictorian, from the Dallas Theological Seminary, with a major in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis, in 1952 ). Included in the book are letters and/or comments from: Dr. Spiros Zodhiates (President of the American Mission to Greeks), Dr. Stewart Custer (Chairman, Bible Dept., Bob Jones University), Dr. John F. Walvoord (previous President of Dallas Theological Seminary), Dr. Kenneth Wuest (professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute), Charles C. Ryrie (Dean Of Doctoral Studies ), Dr. Charles Woodbridge (Christian Admiral), Dr. Philip R. Williams (Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis), Dr. Oliver B. Greene (Director of The Gospel Hour), Ron Hood (Southland Bible Institute), Rev. Stewart Lease (Lancaster School of the Bible), and Pastor George H Mundell. Quotes from A. W. Pink's (Bible expositor) exposition on 1 John 1:9.

**** "Appraisal of Doctrines & Ministry Of R. B. Thieme, Jr." by Rev. H. Duncan 7 page pamphlet.Go to [www.biblefortoday.org] Search under "Author" - Rev. H. Duncan. Book can be ordered by credit card.

**** The Houston Chronicle wrote a somewhat lengthy review article on Chapter 14 of the book - UNDER GOD: RELIGION AND AMERICAN POLITTICS by Gary Wills (a catholic who surprised Thieme) ISBN 0-671-65705-4 COPYRIGHT 1990. Go to [www.chron.com] grab a 1 day qpass for $4.95 then search for Thieme "religion, politics in perspective" article, under Houston post search.

**** Article from the Discerner (Interdenominational Heresy-Exposing Quarterly) - "ABERRATIONS EVANGELICAL FACE 1. The Teaching of R. B. Thieme" by Dr. David Larsen 4 page article. copyright 1975 by Religion Analysis Service, Inc. Jan. - Mar. 1975 Issue Vol. VIII No. 5. Item can be ordered by calling R.A.S. at (763)535-8715.


**** "...R.B. Thieme has been described as "a cult figure" by James Dunn, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington. Controversial through he may be even among fundamentalists, ..." [www.tarpley.net]

TO EPHESIANS

YOU SAID YOU THINK THIEME "CARES" AND YOU THINK HE'S THE BEST?
I ASSURE YOU THIEME IS NOT THE BEST, BUT SOME PEOPLE IN MASTER/SLAVE RELATIONSHIPS GET A FEELING OF INTIMACY FROM THIEME'S ABUSIVE STYLE. SOME PEOPLE NEED VIOLENCE TO FEEL INTIMATE. I THINK YOU ARE IN LOVE WITH THIEME AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I SAY OR ANYONE ELSE SAYS.

Ephesians: Again, the idea of using Wall's doctoral status as a means of seeking to prove Thieme's teachings must be lesser is transparently straw-man. If Thieme had gone on to complete his doctoral work (given his summa cum laude status upon graduation, I'm sure this would not have been difficult), and Wall did not due to a call to this or that church (an entirely plausible scenario), would Thieme's teachings automatically become the greater of the two due to his doctoral status?

TRUTHTESTY: DR. WALLS DISSERTATION IS NOT A FALSE STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. IT IS A LEGITAMATE ARGUMENT BASED ON A LEGITIAMTE DOCTORATE DEGREE FROM DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. DTS IS A LEGITAMATE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND IT HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME SEMINARY THAT THIEME EARNED HIS MASTERS DEGREE FROM. SO IT'S NOT A "STRAWMAN" ARGUEMENT. A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING FALSE LIKE "THIEME CLAIMS TO BE A LIBERAL ACTIVIST!" THEN SHOWING PROOF THAT HE IS NOT. IT IS THIEME WHO MADE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF TRANSLATING HEBREW, GREEK AND ARAMAIC FROM DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. IT IS THIEME WHO HAS REJECTED QUITE NEARLY EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN TEACHER FOR THE PAST 2000 YEARS (INCLUDING THE THOUGHT FORMS OF THE BIBLICAL WRITERS). IT IS THIEME PROCLAIMING HE IS THE BEST. QUIT TRYING TO "PRECONDITION" TRUTH TO BE LESSER OR GREATER SO YOU CAN SEE THIEME AS THE "GREATEST". BY THE WAY, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THIEME TO GET HIS DOCTORATE FROM DTS BECAUSE HE OBVIOUSLY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE DOCTORS OF THEOLOGY WHO TAUGHT THERE. (THIS IS VERIFIED BY THIEME'S OWN STATEMENTS)

Ephesians: Now, if some theologian out there did his or her doctoral dissertation on how heretical Wall is for teaching this, along with extensive scriptural and historical support, would this doctoral candidate be proving Wall wrong?
Ephesians: One problem with debating is that the person who wins a debate is the best debater, simply that. It doesn't mean he is "right". The winner may be better at recall of facts, mastery of debating techniques, ability to think quickly, ability to re-route their opponent..I could go on and on with this. There is a very well known man on the internet who is a former pastor turned atheist, who currently has ten years worth of archives of his writings on the net which challenge the idea of Biblical inerrancy. He knows more about the Bible than most seminary graduates. He has engaged in more in-person debates than I can count, mostly with Christian pastors and evangelists, and he pretty much skins alive every opponent in every debate. Does this make him right?

TRUTHTESTY: YOU MISS THE POINT OF DEBATE. THE POINT OF DEBATE IS TO GLEAN THE TRUTH FROM BOTH SIDES. WALL HAS PROVEN THAT THIEME'S EXEGESIS IN KOINE GREEK IS WRONG ON MANY OCCASIONS. THIS SHOULD PROVE AT LEAST SOMEWHAT INTERESTING TO THIEMITES, AS SO MANY THIEMITES THINK KOINE GREEK IS SO IMPORTANT AND THIEME HAS USED IT TO STOP CHRISTIANS FROM STUDYING FOR THEMSLVES. DEBATE, IF YOU WILL, IS THE DISCUSSION THAT OFTEN PREVENTS UNECESSARY VIOLENCE, WHETHER IT'S VIOLENCE THAT IS DIRECTED INWARDLY TOWARDS ONESELF OR OUTWARDLY TOWARDS OTHERS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF USEFUL DEBATE IS THE COURT PROCESS IN THE USA. WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS. YOU HAVE A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, SO THAT A JURY COULD DETERMINE THE TRUTH FROM BOTH SIDES. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN "REALITY" IF WE SIMPLY SAID "OH WELL THE COURT PROCESS IS JUST A DEBATE, IT'S JUST NOT USEFUL BECAUSE ONLY ONE SIDE IS GOING TO WIN" WHAT DO YOU DO IN "REALITY" THEN, IF YOU REMOVE THE COURT PROCESS? JUST SHOOT PEOPLE BECAUSE YOUR SUSPICIOUS? LET CRIMINALS GO BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH HAVING A DEBATE? HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU REALLY CONSIDER GOD TO BE?

Ephesians: By the way, as I have stated before, Dan Quayle is not, and never was a member of Berachah. Marilyn Quayle's parents were/are. It's entirely possible he might have attended a service or two, but I have heard nothing regarding this. Don't believe everything you read.

TRUTHTESTY: HOW CASUALLY YOU BYPASS AN OBVIOUS POLITICAL CONNECTION. SO I GUESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BYPASS THIEME'S NEOCONSERVATIVE VIEWS? DAN QUAYLE WAS A MEMBER OF PNAC NEO-RIGHT WING POLITICAL THINK TANK RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. HIS PARENTS ARE MEMBERS OF BERACHAH WHERE THIEME SAID THAT IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA, AND LEBANON SHOULD BE DESTROYED MILITARILY. WHAT? DAN AND HIS PARENTS DON'T TALK?

TRUTHTESTY: MY STATEMENT ABOUT THIEME'S MILITARY EXPERIENCE AT A SAFE AIRBASE IN ARIZONA (THIEME'S MAIN ACCOMPLISHMENT WAS WRITING A TRAINING MANUAL) WAS THAT THIEME HAS NEVER SEEN A BATTLEFIELD. I HAVE. I FOUGHT IN COMBAT SO I SEE THIEME AS AN IDEOLOGICAL BULLY/COWARD WHO USES HIS RETIRED [b:1590479b84]LIUETENANT[/b:1590479b84] COLENOL STATUS AS SOME SORT OF "CREDIBILTY TRANSFER" FOR HIS UNJUSTIFIED AND SELF-ARROGATED CLAIM OF AUTHORITY.

TRUTHTESTY: ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION "IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIEME IS BEING ATTACKED, NOT BY SATANIC FORCES, BUT BECAUSE THIEME HAS MADE HUGE ERRORS?

TRUTHTESTY: THIEME HAD CLASS EVERYDAY FOR 53 YEARS? SO WHAT SO HAVE OTHER CULTS. CULTS ARE VERY HIGHLY DISCIPLINED GROUPS.

TRUTHTESTY: [u:1590479b84][b:1590479b84]I CHALLENGE YOU, BERACHAH CHURCH, ALL THIEMITES, AND/OR THIEME'S SON TO PUBLISH THIEME'S EXEGESIS ON THE WEB. IN WORD OR PDF FORMAT[/b:1590479b84][/u:1590479b84] IT WILL NOT STAND UP TO THE TRUTH OF THE LIGHT. YOU THINK YOUR THE BEST - PROVE IT - BRING IT ON.

TRUTHTESTY: In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.

TAKE CARE

Testy -

It is Marilyn Quayle's (Dan's [i:f20546ac0d]wife[/i:f20546ac0d]) parents who were/are members of the church, not Dan's parents. As far as I know, Dan has never even been inside the church.

Berachah is not [i:f20546ac0d]by any means [/i:f20546ac0d]"loaded". The information you are conveying, which you got from Dr. Wall's thesis, by the way, is accurate..part of the land owned by Berachah was sold to the Galleria, which enabled Berachah to start off in a financially sound position...something that is rare with most churches, but all one has to do is read the periodic financial statements, and you can see that the church has been in the red at various times. The amounts in reserves are also listed on the statements, which, honestly, don't amount to much in comparison with some of the mega churches today. God's grace has definitely shone on this church, in that, through it's entire history the church has never failed to provide doctrine to those who wanted it from the church, free of charge. And the land that Berachah sits on is definitely a prime piece of Houston real estate, but the church is the farthest thing in the world from "loaded".

As to the rest of your post (ad hominem attacks against me and/or Thieme aside)...I never said Wall's dissertation was straw-man, I said that asserting the idea that Wall's doctoral status assigns him an authority in which he pulls rank over Thieme and in turn his ideas are superior is straw-man...I never said the concept of debating is not profitable, just that to demand a church be an avenue for debate with the pastor of that church is a little over the top, and that just because one side may appear to win in the mind of an audience, does not make the winner "right"...and so on and so on....at this point I feel like I'm up against a brick wall here with a person on an aggressive one-man crusade to destroy Thieme. But it's definitely been interesting talking to you.

Liberty, I'll try to get to a comment on your post when I get some time....

I CHALLENGE YOU, BERACHAH CHURCH, ALL THIEMITES, AND/OR THIEME'S SON TO PUBLISH THIEME'S EXEGESIS ON THE WEB. IN WORD OR PDF FORMAT IT WILL NOT STAND UP TO THE TRUTH OF THE LIGHT. YOU THINK YOUR THE BEST - PROVE IT - BRING IT ON.

Quote


You are fighthting the wrong group is he not a Christian ???

"If you break one of these least commandmants and teach men so, he will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Just because he is "Cult Like" does not mean he is non christian you better be carefull Challange the JWS now What you all say about me because I do not believe Christ is "God" i am in a cult. Now you guys are picking apart a man that taught the Trinity ???

so what is it ??

Liberty..thanks again for your response. I actually learned a few things from your short dissertation, believe it or not.

After reading what you have written, however, I don't think you are too far off base in some area, and I think even Thieme would have agreed. I know this might be startling, so I'll try to explain....

I totally agree with several of your concepts, notably that great movements and reformations of thought have been brought about by people simply reading their Bibles in whatever language is native to them (or whatever they could get their hands on). It is not the contention of Thieme that you must go to him, or the Greek, or whatever, to be saved, or to learn basic spiritual mechanics. And, I believe, it's not learning intricacies of Church Age (mystery) doctrine that provoke great change in history, it's the simple things.

Anyone can readily read John 3:16, or whatever other salvation verse you wish to come up with, and be saved. Anyone can read 1 John 1:9 in the English and get the concept. Right there you have the basic spiritual life, and it's enough to get along...and to move mountains and historically change things. I don't think Thieme would disagree, and as you know, he has extensively gone on about the greatness of the Reformation and all those men you mentioned (especially see PPOG series, 1984) with full acknowledgment that it was certain men reading their own Bibles and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church which brought about spiritual uptrends. Thieme might not have agreed with every teaching of Zwingli or Calvin, et al, but nor does he insist on their illegitimacy or diminish their movement because they did not adhere to his interpretation of the Bible in the Greek.

I'll try to further clarify:

1. One man, living in 1511, rejects the authority of the RCC, and reads for himself John 3:16 and is saved. He further reads 1 John 1:9 and puts it to daily use.

2. Another man, in 1985, believes in Christ in Thieme's church, and then goes on to learn salvation mechanics, including advanced soteriology, concepts of propitiation, etc. according to Thieme. He then learns the mechanics behind 1 John 1:9, including what it means to be filled with the Spirit and various mechanics behind spirituality in the context of all of Thieme's terminology.

Is there really a difference between the two? Both men are saved; both men use "rebound", even though man #1 has never heard of this concept. Both men, are living full spiritual lives, both men's lives are having historical impact.

So...I hardly disagree with you regarding the concept that men of the past took a Bible in their own language, were saved, learned spiritual principles, and had impact...some of it truly great.

So that leaves us with Thieme's (or any other person espousing the importance of Greek exegesis) role, and advanced Church Age doctrine.

First, I agree with you that the koine Greek is not a magical language; it's a language like any other language. And I don't think it was a problem for contemporaries of Paul to have to learn the language or understand its meaning. The problem is that the language is now dead, and we are faced with the problem that we are so far removed from it, that it can be difficult to get its exact meaning without intense study. As you can see, it's on this point that I strongly disagree with some of your statements. What we have in translation is just that, somebody else's interpretation of what [i:dd43e64bef]they[/i:dd43e64bef] thought whatever manuscript they were translating from meant.

to quote textual critic Bruce Metzger:

[i:dd43e64bef]Since not all nuances can be transferred from one language to another, one must choose which to render and which not. The theory that a translation can convey all the qualities of the original is wishful thinking or a deluded fancy. Translation involves, as one of the translators of the New Swedish Bible Project put it, the art of making the right sacrifice. In short, except on a purely practical level translation is never entirely satisfactory. (Bruce M. Metzger, Principles and Problems in Bible Translation, sound recording [New Haven: Religious Education Association, 1981], 1 hour 6 minutes.) [/i:dd43e64bef]

Even Martin Luther states:

[i:dd43e64bef]"In the measure that we love the Gospel, so let us place strong
emphasis on the languages. For it is not without reason that God
wrote the Scriptures in the two languages Hebrew and Greek.
That language which God did not despise but rather chose above all
others for the final revelation of His Word is the language
which we also should honor above all others. *It is a sin and shame
that we do not learn this language of our Book*, especially since
God has now provided us people and books, and gives us all kinds of
things which both help us with this task and at the same time
stimulates us to do this." (Luther, 1524)[/i:dd43e64bef]

I could fill this page with examples of how, unless you had a lexicon, you would have no idea what was being stated. Compounding this problem, is the fact that some Koine Greek words need a paragraph or two to convey their hermeneutics and translated English meanings. This can't be done, for the sake of brevity, so we often get very clipped translations of different passages where things must be pared down to a few words, or even one word.

Also, different Bible versions translate some words entirely different. How do you deal with this? The NIV interprets [i:dd43e64bef]paradosis[/i:dd43e64bef] based on its own anti-tradition bent hence the words gets a different translation in various verses based on this bias. Is anyone without understanding what the Koine (specifically [i:dd43e64bef]pleroma[/i:dd43e64bef]) means in Ephesians 1:23 going to understand in the slightest bit what that passage is really telling us? I could go on and on.

At the very least, we get a deeper understanding of the meaning of the passage in various places, because of the actual usage of a specific word in that time period, isn't that enough to necessitate an effort into learning the original languages?

The final thought I'd like to share is the idea of the justice of God related to opportunity, because I think this is really the thing that needs to be addressed. This discussion is actually very coincidental because Bobby (Thieme's son) a few months back addressed this very issue. It was using different examples, and emphasized the time allotted to a person over the age they lived in...but the conclusions were the same.

Hypothetically, take that man I mentioned above in category #1 doing his best with what he has, reading his Bible every day..perhaps he was isolated and lived in the mountains or something...but he loved God and was a diligent student with what he had. Then compare that to a student of Thieme's who had access to all his teachings, all his tapes, but was somewhat lazy in his studies. He knew a lot of doctrine, maybe even more than man #1, but he didn't do the most with the time he had.

Regarding the Judgment Seat, the deduction can be made that the person of lesser opportunity that made the most of what he had comes out ahead of the lazy Berachah student. It's an application of the justice of God to the situation that I think is entirely doctrinal, and now you know that Berachah teaches such a concept as well.

It comes down to an issue of using what you have. Since God can only be fair, this is the only way it can work. As a student of Thieme's, I feel that more is expected of me because I have access to so much information that might not have been available to people in the past. Then it's my duty to respond to the call. And it's not my viewpoint that since I feel I might have a great understanding of the intricacies of Church Age doctrine (and this really is the Thieme emphasis) than others, that this makes me better than others. It means I need to take advantage of it. I'm not better than anyone else, and that man in 1511 could be standing head and shoulders above me in the long run.

Thanks again, and even though I probably need to take a vacation at this point from posting due to my lack of priority management recently, I'll still be reading the posts.

John Doe said: You are fighthting the wrong group is he not a Christian ???

"If you break one of these least commandmants and teach men so, he will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Just because he is "Cult Like" does not mean he is non christian you better be carefull Challange the JWS now What you all say about me because I do not believe Christ is "God" i am in a cult. Now you guys are picking apart a man that taught the Trinity ???

so what is it ??

Truthtesty replies:

John would you not tell the people at Jonestown who drank poisonous koolaid, that there was poison in the Koolaid, if you knew ahead of time? All these people claimed to be christian. Jim Jones the cult leader claimed to be christian. By the way over 900 people were murdered in Jonestown including 1 US congressman.

David Koresh claimed to be christian over 200 people killed including children.

"BTK Killer" was the president of a church congregation yet he was a twisted sexual serial murderer/rapist. The BTK killer claimed to be christian and enjoyed positions of authority over other people.

Andrea Yates claimed to be christian yet murdered here own children.

So just because someone claims to be christian, doesn't mean that they are christian or that they are a healthy contribution to the Body of Jesus.

Thieme teaches that you should respect the authority of Jim Jones even if you disagree, don't say anything derogatory to disrespect the ministry, respect Jim Jones's privacy and the other 900 victims and quietly leave the church.

Thieme never said Jim Jones specifically, but that is Thieme's basic prescription if you disagree with a different church's ministry. This points out an extreme flaw in Thieme's logic and a huge gap in common sense.

I say when you see something wrong it needs to pointed out.
I have seen "normal" people with happy lives who have a peaceful faith in Jesus go into Berachah Church and come out robotic extremist christians, mimicking Thieme's: views, haircut, personality, prejudices(such as calling black people melanoderms), and beliefs. Essentially the said good-bye to who they were and copied Thieme down to the last detail.
That is unhealthy for the body of Jesus.


How are you to determine that any teacher is false or true?

The bible says watch out for false teachers, that we are to be WISE AS THE SERPENTS HARMLESS AS DOVES. The bible says that even satan is an angel of light.

Satan knows KOINE greek better than any man that's ever existed except for Jesus. So simply learning advanced biblical KOINE greek is no indication one way or another of biblical truth.

So be "wise as the serpents" take a look at cult characteristics [www.refocus.org] take heed an make your own decisions and be responsible to God for it. You might be wrong that's one of the reasons for prayer.

Truthtesty





[]