R.B. Thieme Jr.
Date: February 14, 2007 11:36AM
ephesians,
You mentioned the “present tense” of the verb in 1 John 1:9. This is a prime example of the deficiency of Thieme’s so-called “corrected” translations, and how they would never stand up to criticism if posted online, where anyone fluent in Greek could read them. (I always wondered why, if Thieme’s “corrected” translations are so much better than all the “terrible” translations he is “correcting,” then why did he never publish his own version of the Bible? What a great benefit it would be for Christianity, to have Thieme’s “corrected” Bible!) The way Thieme translated verbs in the present tense was very often wrong. What Thieme consistently did was change the basic present tense into a [i:3bc5d29ec4]present participle[/i:3bc5d29ec4]. “Walk” became “keep on walking”; “confess” became “keep on confessing”; etc. However, whether you’re reading Greek or English, the present tense does not necessarily connote ongoing action. This is a very simple, common sense concept, of which there are innumerable examples.
Consider the verb “drink.” Jesus said to the woman at the well, “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever [b:3bc5d29ec4]drinketh [/b:3bc5d29ec4]of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” Whoever “drinks” (present tense) of the water of life will be eternally saved—this is a one-time action. On the other hand, if I say, “Joe drinks soda when he’s thirsty,” obviously this is an action that is repeated indefinitely. The [i:3bc5d29ec4]context [/i:3bc5d29ec4]of the verb makes its meaning perfectly obvious. It is a matter of simple common sense. If my little cousin Abby [u:3bc5d29ec4]walks[/u:3bc5d29ec4] over to the shelf to get my uncle’s Bible because he asked her for it, obviously she only has to do it once; she doesn’t have keep on walking to the shelf numerous times. But if she [u:3bc5d29ec4]walks[/u:3bc5d29ec4] to school in the morning, obviously this is an ongoing, repeated action. We don’t have to slice-and-dice and over-analyze the tense of the verb to figure out what is being said. Thieme wants us to believe this, because he wants us to believe that we can’t understand the Bible without his technical analysis. Another well-known scriptural example would be John 3:15-36, where we are told four times that “whosoever believeth” (present tense) will be saved. The verb is in the present tense, yet it is obvious to any reader that this is a simple choice to believe in Christ, as opposed to a continuing, repetitive action. In fact, if we applied Thieme’s translation technique to this passage, we would have to say that continually believing in Christ is required for salvation.
A popular favorite among Thieme and other pastors like him is to make a big issue out of [i:3bc5d29ec4]agapao [/i:3bc5d29ec4]and [i:3bc5d29ec4]phileo[/i:3bc5d29ec4], which are both translated “love.” They claim that [i:3bc5d29ec4]agapao [/i:3bc5d29ec4]is a virtuous, “impersonal” love, and that [i:3bc5d29ec4]phileo [/i:3bc5d29ec4]is a more emotion-based, “personal” love. But it only takes a little common sense (and the diligence to check things out for yourself) to see what a fallacy this is. [i:3bc5d29ec4]Agapao [/i:3bc5d29ec4]and [i:3bc5d29ec4]phileo [/i:3bc5d29ec4]are nothing more than interchangeable synonyms, as demonstrated by Greek scholars far more qualified than Thieme (more detailed information on this is provided in the books that John and I have published). But as far as our online discussion here is concerned, a few scriptural examples will suffice. In Matthew 22:37 we are commanded to “agapao” the Lord—this can hardly be an “impersonal” love. In John 3:19, John 12:43, 2 Timothy 4:10, and 2 Peter 2:15, we are told that unbelieving men “agapao-ed” [u:3bc5d29ec4]darkness[/u:3bc5d29ec4], the Pharisees “agapao-ed” the [u:3bc5d29ec4]praise of men[/u:3bc5d29ec4], Demas forsook Paul because he “agapao-ed” the [u:3bc5d29ec4]world[/u:3bc5d29ec4], and Balaam “agapao-ed” the [u:3bc5d29ec4]wages of unrighteousness[/u:3bc5d29ec4]. This can hardly be a “virtuous” or “impersonal” love. In Matthew 23:6 the Pharisees “agapao-ed” the best seats at social events, and in Luke 11:43 they “phileo-ed” the best seats in the synagogues. In John 19:26 we are told that John was the disciple whom Jesus “agapao-ed,” and in John 20:2 we are told he was the disciple Jesus “phileo-ed.”
Again, the use of these words is obvious in the context. Anyone, no matter how uneducated, can easily discern between the different uses of words like “love” in different contexts. I could say, “I love Jenny (my fiancée),” “I love the Patriots,” or “I love pizza.” It is obvious that my love for Jenny is different than my love for my favorite food or favorite sports team. The differences between our love for God, our love for family, our love for friends, and love toward our enemies are obvious. It is simple common sense. The writers of Scripture were common men writing to the common people, and they communicated in simple language. They were not intellectual philosophers whose real meaning can only be found in a technical analysis of verb tenses and syntax by a highly educated scholar. They were simple servants of Jesus Christ with a message of the utmost importance, which they would never hide from anyone. All the truths of Scripture (and I mean all of them) are open and understandable to any humble, teachable Christian reading his English Bible, but they are needlessly complicated by Thieme and many Thiemite pastors. This little Greek Game that they play enables them to rewrite the Bible any way they please and tell the people anything they want. And the people are incapable of questioning anything they say, because, after all, they’re just simple, common people who don’t know koine Greek. The Greek Game is just one more way (and a very effective one) of controlling the people and preventing them from forming their own beliefs and convictions.
You also stated that spirituality must be “black and white.” My first challenge to you is simply, show me one scripture in the entire Bible that says this. And secondly, consider how the Bible describes carnality and spirituality, rather than limiting yourself to Thieme’s description. The Apostle Paul admonishes the carnal Corinthians with these words: [i:3bc5d29ec4]“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto [b:3bc5d29ec4]spiritual[/b:3bc5d29ec4], but as unto [b:3bc5d29ec4]carnal[/b:3bc5d29ec4], even as unto [b:3bc5d29ec4]babes [/b:3bc5d29ec4]in Christ. I have fed you with [b:3bc5d29ec4]milk[/b:3bc5d29ec4], and not with [b:3bc5d29ec4]meat[/b:3bc5d29ec4]: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. [b:3bc5d29ec4]For ye are yet carnal: [/b:3bc5d29ec4]for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” [/i:3bc5d29ec4]When Paul called the Corinthians “carnal,” was he saying they weren’t “confessed up”? Did he tell them to “name and cite” their sins to get back in fellowship? Certainly not. He compares being “carnal” with babies who can only handle milk and who are bickering with each other. Their carnality is in their behavior and lifestyle—not because they were “out of fellowship” and needed to “rebound.” (It is certainly strange that Paul never once tells the most carnal church of all to “confess” their sins to “instantly” regain their spirituality.) He also told the Corinthians that [i:3bc5d29ec4]“he that is spiritual judgeth all things,” [/i:3bc5d29ec4]and the Galatians that [i:3bc5d29ec4]“if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness.” [/i:3bc5d29ec4]Paul could hardly make such statements about any believer who was merely ’fessed up. To judge all things and to restore a backsliding brother require wisdom and maturity. There is no such thing as “instant spirituality” ever mentioned in the Bible. And I challenge you to show me one scripture where it is mentioned. To be “filled with the Spirit” in Ephesians 5:18 is simply spiritual growth through God’s Word, like being filled with the Word of Christ in Colossians 3:16. That is why these nearly identical passages (Eph 4-6 and Col 3-4) are all about Christian maturity and virtue, and confessing sins is never even mentioned. This is hardly being “lost in space,” ephesians. This is the simple principle of growing and maturing spiritually, which all Christians generally believe in. Thieme’s presentation of the filling of the Spirit as an “instant and absolute state of the Holy Spirit’s control of the soul” is both unscriptural and illogical. If our soul were under an [i:3bc5d29ec4]absolute [/i:3bc5d29ec4]state of [i:3bc5d29ec4]control [/i:3bc5d29ec4]by the Holy Spirit, then it would be impossible for us to ever sin again.
Stop and think about this seriously, ephesians. Haven’t you ever wondered why this doctrine of “rebound” has to lean so heavily on [u:3bc5d29ec4]one[/u:3bc5d29ec4] verse (1 John 1:9)? A verse that doesn’t even mention the filling of the Spirit or “restoration to fellowship”? Haven’t you ever wondered why there isn’t one verse in the entire Bible that says the filling of the Spirit and restoration to fellowship are the results of confessing sins? Especially if this is such a vital doctrine for the spiritual life of God’s people? Doesn’t the complete absence of a verse that simply states this concept ever trouble you? Isn’t it strange that Thieme has to resort to passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and Hebrews 12 as so-called “synonyms” for rebound, when none of these passages even mention confessing sins, being filled with the Spirit, or being restored to fellowship?
You quoted Luke 15:20, 2 Samuel 12:13, and Psalm 38:18. First, allow me to point out the obvious. [b:3bc5d29ec4](1)[/b:3bc5d29ec4] You have quoted a parable from the Gospels and two Old Testament verses. You do not have a single scripture from the New Testament epistles to support “rebound.” Paul, the revealer of the mystery, in all his letters, never once tells us to confess our sins—not even in the one passage where he tells us to be filled with the Spirit. [b:3bc5d29ec4](2)[/b:3bc5d29ec4] None of the three verses you have quoted mention an instant restoration of spirituality or fellowship.
In Luke 15:20, after a period of disobedience and carnality, the prodigal son acknowledges (or, if you like, confesses) that he has sinned and repents. Obviously, whenever we fall into sin, we need to admit we’ve sinned and repent. This is a very basic and obvious principle of the Christian life that all Christians can agree on. But there is nothing here that implies the constant, mechanical performance of the “rebound” ritual every time we have a wayward thought, in order to “recover fellowship.” (I personally believe that this is a salvation parable directed at the unbelieving Jews in verse 2, but that’s another story for another time.) In 2 Samuel 12:13, David has also been disobeying God for a period of time, until he is confronted by Nathan. When Nathan exposes him, he says, “I have sinned against the Lord.” After hardening his heart for so long, David is now broken and repentant. This is why Nathan tells him the Lord will no longer discipline him in his own person for his sin, and he will not die. The reason Nathan could say this is that David had repented and ceased from his disobedience. If all he had done was “rebound,” without a change of heart, the discipline upon his health and life would not have been removed. There is simply no evidence here for an “instant spirituality” through “rebound.” If the best defense you can up with is a passage like this from the Old Testament, you are grasping at straws, ephesians. The same can be said about Psalm 38:18. When David says he will confess (or declare) his sin, he is not talking about a constant, minute-by-minute ritual of “naming and citing” every sin he can think of in order to “get back in fellowship.” He is expressing his wretched condition and his acknowledgement of his sin and repentance. The deliverance from his anxiety and misery is the result of a [u:3bc5d29ec4]change of heart and repentance[/u:3bc5d29ec4], not a “quick naming of sins.”
Also, your statement that “Thieme had, especially over the last 20 years, gone to great lengths to emphasize the role of spiritual growth in daily Christian living,” is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that Thieme taught spiritual growth (as virtually all Christian churches do) does not change the fact that his doctrine of “rebound” has no Biblical support and that it places a giant legalistic burden on many of God’s people. I would also point out that whatever Thieme’s son has taught since Thieme’s retirement is also irrelevant. We are discussing Thieme’s teachings, not his son’s.
You claim that Thieme is not a “lone wolf crying in the woods,” but in fact he basically is. It is true that many Protestant churches still teach confession of sins as part of the Christian life, but none of them (that I know of) attach the same consequences to this as Thieme does. What makes Thieme so different from the rest of Christianity is the severe consequences he attaches to rejection of his doctrines. How many of the Protestant churches you looked up actually teach that all Christians who don’t constantly confess their sins [u:3bc5d29ec4]have no spiritual life whatsoever[/u:3bc5d29ec4], and [u:3bc5d29ec4]will die miserably under the sin unto death[/u:3bc5d29ec4], and that[i:3bc5d29ec4] [u:3bc5d29ec4]their sins are not forgiven[/u:3bc5d29ec4]? [/i:3bc5d29ec4]
I grew up in a Presbyterian church that taught that confession of sins was a good thing and should be done regularly. But they never accused their differing brethren of having no spiritual life, nor did they ever make dire predictions of them suffering a miserable fate under the sin unto death. And they would be utterly appalled at the teaching that all our sins are not forgiven when we believe in Christ. The forgiveness of all sins through the Cross of Jesus Christ is a foundational truth of the Christian faith. To deny this great Biblical truth is heresy and deserves to be denounced in the strongest language.
In one of your posts, you wrote, “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’.”
This is a subtle move, ephesians. You are trying to justify Thieme’s legalistic, elitist teachings concerning the [u:3bc5d29ec4]spiritual life [/u:3bc5d29ec4]by appealing to his grace teachings concerning [u:3bc5d29ec4]salvation[/u:3bc5d29ec4]. As I said earlier, I am glad that Thieme taught the finished work of the Cross (although he later compromised this). But this is no excuse for telling God’s people they can’t understand the Bible and scaring them into submission with the fear of the sin unto death and eternal “loser” status if they dare to depart from his doctrinal system. Regardless of what he taught concerning salvation, the destructive consequences of his other teachings should be exposed.
I believe you are sincere in your beliefs, and I would never question your love for the Lord. Unlike Thieme, I believe that other Christians can disagree with my theology and still glorify God and serve Him faithfully. I also believe, however, that you have become too attached to Thieme, and therefore you are not willing to face the reality of the damage he has done. As dedicated as you are to Thieme’s teaching, I hope and pray that you will thoroughly examine these issues before you lead fellow members of the Body of Christ into false teaching. Let us always live by Paul’s warning “not to think of men above that which is written.”
Liberty