R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
HappyAndFree
()
Date: March 30, 2007 05:49AM
GeneZ,
The same thing can be said of you,
"I have seen all sorts of believers who claim to grasp his teachings, when they do not. You do not. So? How can you know if another does? They see it in the same way you do. That does not mean they grasp it. "
You think you grasp it and you don't. You have no clue to what has occurred in your little brainwashed head.
You are nothing more than a dupe of Thieme.
The same thing can be said of you,
"I have seen all sorts of believers who claim to grasp his teachings, when they do not. You do not. So? How can you know if another does? They see it in the same way you do. That does not mean they grasp it. "
You think you grasp it and you don't. You have no clue to what has occurred in your little brainwashed head.
You are nothing more than a dupe of Thieme.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
SpiritualLiberty
()
Date: March 30, 2007 06:35AM
Hi, brainout, and welcome to the forum. From your username, I’m assuming you’re the author of the “rebound” article posted at [www.geocities.com], or you’re at least associated with the website in some way. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) Your entire article is full of the same kind of empty assumptions and speculations, and meaningless technical terms, that I’ve already heard from ephesians, Galiban, and many other Thieme followers and pastors. You go to great lengths to try to reword passages to suit your own taste, and you love your fancy technical terms, as most Thieme followers do. But after all your efforts, and no matter how much you “correct” the translation, you still can’t make the Bible say, “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit.” You still have not provided the answers to any of the questions I have posed to ephesians and Galiban. (If you haven’t read my posts already, I’ll be happy to repeat my questions for you.)
[i:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]1. "Divine Dynasphere" as the Power Structure for the spiritual life, thus accounting for the stress on MECHANICS of thought-skill training. [/b:cfabcaa1fd]That's just a fancy term from the Greek for the Filling Ministry of the Spirit, 1Jn1:9, John 4:23-24, Eph 5:18, John 14:26, 1Cor2, Eph4:23, Eph4:11-16, 1Thess 5:19 (in context), all of James (especially his sarcasm in Jas 2:22, 26, lol), etc. In short, it's Spirit's Filling, Spirit's Power to enable one to perceive and live on Bible.[/i:cfabcaa1fd] [emphasis yours]
Much like Galiban, you like to make statements followed by a string of “prooftexts,” but you do nothing to show that those scriptures actually support your statement. I have already challenged ephesians and Galiban repeatedly to demonstrate how these scriptures support “rebound,” and how Eph 4, Eph 5, 1 Thess 5, etc., can be connected to 1 John 1:9. And none of you have been able to answer me.
You insist on building a bridge between 1 John 1:9 and Eph 5:18. But you refuse to acknowledge any connection between 1 John 1:9 and other scriptures that actually talk about confession of sins, forgiveness of sins, and cleansing from unrighteousness. You insist on using Eph 5:18 to determine the meaning of 1 John 1:9, and you refuse to use scriptures where the same principles are actually found. Why? Why build a bridge from 1 John 1:9 to Eph 5:18, but not to other scriptures that actually deal with the same principles?
Going back to the Rebound Formula...
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]You must be filled with the Spirit.[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
Eph 5:18 [i:cfabcaa1fd]And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]How?[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
1Jo 1:9 [i:cfabcaa1fd]If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
Why not insert any other scripture under [b:cfabcaa1fd]How?[/b:cfabcaa1fd] that strikes our fancy? (Since we’re not accountable to show any kind of relevance whatsoever.) How about Rom 16:16?
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]You must be filled with the Spirit.[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
Eph 5:18 [i:cfabcaa1fd]And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]How?[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
Rom 16:16 [i:cfabcaa1fd]Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
So now we have to kiss each other to get filled with the Spirit. And I have just as much reason for inserting Rom 16:16 as you do for inserting 1 John 1:9. There is no more relevance between Eph 5:18 and 1 John 1:9 than there is between Eph 5:18 and Rom 16:16. This is what happens when we start arbitrarily connecting one verse to another without showing that they are even relevant to each other. We can now make the Bible say anything we want.
One of the passages you emphasized the most in your webpage was 2 Peter 1, so I’ll start there:
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]2 Peter 1[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
[b:cfabcaa1fd]1 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
[b:cfabcaa1fd]2 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
[b:cfabcaa1fd]3 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
[b:cfabcaa1fd]4 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]5 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your [u:cfabcaa1fd]faith[/u:cfabcaa1fd] [u:cfabcaa1fd]virtue[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to virtue [u:cfabcaa1fd]knowledge[/u:cfabcaa1fd];
[b:cfabcaa1fd]6 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]And to knowledge [u:cfabcaa1fd]temperance[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to temperance [u:cfabcaa1fd]patience[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to patience [u:cfabcaa1fd]godliness[/u:cfabcaa1fd];
[b:cfabcaa1fd]7 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]And to godliness [u:cfabcaa1fd]brotherly kindness[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to brotherly kindness [u:cfabcaa1fd]charity[/u:cfabcaa1fd].
[b:cfabcaa1fd]8 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]For if [u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd] be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]9 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]But he that lacketh [u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd] is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]10 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
[b:cfabcaa1fd]11 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]12 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always [b:cfabcaa1fd]in remembrance of [u:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/u:cfabcaa1fd][/b:cfabcaa1fd], though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
“These things” are diligence, faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance (self-control/self-discipline), godliness, kindness, and charity (Christian love). “These things” do not include “rebound.” There is not the slightest hint here of confessing sins to instantly recover fellowship or the filling of the Spirit. Whoever lacks [i:cfabcaa1fd]these things [/i:cfabcaa1fd]is blind; it is not whoever lacks “rebound.” Peter will always remind the saints of [i:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/i:cfabcaa1fd]; he never once reminds them to name and cite their sins to instantly recover fellowship or the filling of the Spirit. In fact, all the apostles remind the saints to pursue these spiritual qualities; and none of them ever remind the saints to confess their sins to be filled with the Spirit. You can play your Greek Game to your heart’s content; you can ramble on in your technical speculations; and no matter how you reword these verses with your so-called “corrected” translations, you still cannot make this passage say, “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit.”
[i:cfabcaa1fd]Peter [b:cfabcaa1fd]deftly [/b:cfabcaa1fd]warns all this, in 2Pet1:9; he uses [b:cfabcaa1fd]deft [/b:cfabcaa1fd]syntax to illustrate what happens if you forget to name sins to God; he [b:cfabcaa1fd]allusively [/b:cfabcaa1fd]reminds them of Paul's Phili3:8, and then Zephaniah 1:17. [/i:cfabcaa1fd][emphasis mine]
Zephaniah 1:17 says, “And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.” This is a warning to the idolaters who “worship the host of heaven upon the housetops” (v. 5). It is not directed at people who wouldn’t “rebound.” Zephaniah doesn’t mention a single word about naming sins to God to recover fellowship. Philippians 3:8 says, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” How can you possibly get “rebound” out of this? This is about as “allusive” as it gets. In fact, it’s so “allusive” that there isn’t a shred of scriptural support for it. Peter is trying to be “deft” here? He’s trying to “deftly” drop a hint that what he really means is “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit”? Why couldn’t he just simply say that? Why is he playing these games with us? Why can’t he just simply say what he means?
[i:cfabcaa1fd]So about 20 years after Peter, when the apostle John wrote 1Jn1:9, this Absolute "Filling" Requirement -- and its Royal Meaning -- [b:cfabcaa1fd]was so well-known, [u:cfabcaa1fd]he didn't have to use the term "Filling"[/u:cfabcaa1fd][/b:cfabcaa1fd]; he only had to remind the reader how ya got it, in 1Jn1:9: name your sins to God.[/i:cfabcaa1fd] [emphasis mine]
Come on, brainout, you can’t be serious. John is writing the perfect, holy, inspired Word of God, and he just figures “Why bother?” With such a crucial aspect of the spiritual life? How careless of John! This “absolute filling requirement” was “so well known”? Where? When? Where in the entire Bible did anyone know about an instant, absolute filling of the Spirit attained through confessing sins? And when Paul was writing Eph 5:18, rather than tell us that confessing sins was necessary for the filling of the Spirit (a very important point, don’t you think?), he just figures “Why bother?” How careless of Paul! What if the apostles had the same careless attitude in all their writing? Suppose that in Acts 16:31, Paul said to the Philippian jailer, [i:cfabcaa1fd]“Thou shalt be saved,” [/i:cfabcaa1fd]and neglected to tell him to [i:cfabcaa1fd]“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” [/i:cfabcaa1fd]because he just figured “Why bother?” Face it, brainout—the absence of [u:cfabcaa1fd]any reference to the filling of the Spirit in 1 John 1:9[/u:cfabcaa1fd] and the absence of [u:cfabcaa1fd]any reference to confessing sins in Eph 5:18[/u:cfabcaa1fd] are devastating to your “rebound” doctrine.
The reality that you refuse to face is that there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that just simply tells us to confess our sins to be filled with the Spirit. This constant, non-stop confessing of all sins does not exist anywhere in the Bible, Old Testament or New. You Thieme followers claim to be the champions of grace, yet you impose an impossible legalistic burden on God’s people. As I thoroughly covered in my previous posts, we can never have any real confidence that we are still in fellowship with God as we pray, study, serve, etc. We are in imminent danger of having our Heavenly Father sever all communication with us every moment of every day. In your own words: [i:cfabcaa1fd]“So I must use 1Jn1:9 a bizillion times a day.”[/i:cfabcaa1fd] An impossible standard that our Lord Jesus Christ has never required of His people.
[i:cfabcaa1fd]Keeping up our Unfilled status, [b:cfabcaa1fd]we eventually get [u:cfabcaa1fd]capital punishment[/u:cfabcaa1fd][/b:cfabcaa1fd], 1Jn5:16. Upon which, we live with the Lord forever; but we're [b:cfabcaa1fd]"naked"[/b:cfabcaa1fd], never having developed in our Royal Role for eternity. So we get a low role. [b:cfabcaa1fd]Kinda like a [u:cfabcaa1fd]peasant[/u:cfabcaa1fd]. [/b:cfabcaa1fd][/i:cfabcaa1fd][emphasis mine]
It is still amazing to me how you Thieme followers can make statements like this, while promoting yourselves as the champions of grace and accusing others of legalism. God is going to kill anyone who doesn’t follow your “rebound” doctrine. The vast majority of Christians are dying terrible deaths of sorrow and misery because they dared to disagree with you. I’ve known quite a few other Christians from relatives, friends, church, etc., who have passed away or are facing death. And they’ve all faced it with peace and joy, looking forward to seeing their Lord and Savior face-to-face. And there are accounts of numerous Christians throughout history facing death with great courage and faith, who knew nothing of “rebound” or Thieme’s entire doctrinal system.
You have no right to use such pompous, condescending language regarding your own Christian brethren. You have no right to elevate yourselves as the “winners” and denigrate the rest of us as the “losers.” This is why you stubbornly cling to your pet doctrine of “rebound”—because without it, your whole elitist, cultish doctrinal system would crumble. You would have to admit that you weren’t the only Christians filled with the Spirit after all. You would have to admit that God is not killing off most of His people because they rejected your doctrine. You would have to admit that the rest of us are going to welcome the Lord’s return with great joy and receive our eternal inheritance, just like you will. You would have to admit that everything you’ve said about other Christians was arrogant and wrong.
Looking forward to your response, brainout...
Liberty
(the “naked peasant”)
[i:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]1. "Divine Dynasphere" as the Power Structure for the spiritual life, thus accounting for the stress on MECHANICS of thought-skill training. [/b:cfabcaa1fd]That's just a fancy term from the Greek for the Filling Ministry of the Spirit, 1Jn1:9, John 4:23-24, Eph 5:18, John 14:26, 1Cor2, Eph4:23, Eph4:11-16, 1Thess 5:19 (in context), all of James (especially his sarcasm in Jas 2:22, 26, lol), etc. In short, it's Spirit's Filling, Spirit's Power to enable one to perceive and live on Bible.[/i:cfabcaa1fd] [emphasis yours]
Much like Galiban, you like to make statements followed by a string of “prooftexts,” but you do nothing to show that those scriptures actually support your statement. I have already challenged ephesians and Galiban repeatedly to demonstrate how these scriptures support “rebound,” and how Eph 4, Eph 5, 1 Thess 5, etc., can be connected to 1 John 1:9. And none of you have been able to answer me.
You insist on building a bridge between 1 John 1:9 and Eph 5:18. But you refuse to acknowledge any connection between 1 John 1:9 and other scriptures that actually talk about confession of sins, forgiveness of sins, and cleansing from unrighteousness. You insist on using Eph 5:18 to determine the meaning of 1 John 1:9, and you refuse to use scriptures where the same principles are actually found. Why? Why build a bridge from 1 John 1:9 to Eph 5:18, but not to other scriptures that actually deal with the same principles?
Going back to the Rebound Formula...
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]You must be filled with the Spirit.[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
Eph 5:18 [i:cfabcaa1fd]And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]How?[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
1Jo 1:9 [i:cfabcaa1fd]If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
Why not insert any other scripture under [b:cfabcaa1fd]How?[/b:cfabcaa1fd] that strikes our fancy? (Since we’re not accountable to show any kind of relevance whatsoever.) How about Rom 16:16?
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]You must be filled with the Spirit.[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
Eph 5:18 [i:cfabcaa1fd]And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]How?[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
Rom 16:16 [i:cfabcaa1fd]Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.[/i:cfabcaa1fd]
So now we have to kiss each other to get filled with the Spirit. And I have just as much reason for inserting Rom 16:16 as you do for inserting 1 John 1:9. There is no more relevance between Eph 5:18 and 1 John 1:9 than there is between Eph 5:18 and Rom 16:16. This is what happens when we start arbitrarily connecting one verse to another without showing that they are even relevant to each other. We can now make the Bible say anything we want.
One of the passages you emphasized the most in your webpage was 2 Peter 1, so I’ll start there:
[u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]2 Peter 1[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd]
[b:cfabcaa1fd]1 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
[b:cfabcaa1fd]2 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
[b:cfabcaa1fd]3 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
[b:cfabcaa1fd]4 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]5 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your [u:cfabcaa1fd]faith[/u:cfabcaa1fd] [u:cfabcaa1fd]virtue[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to virtue [u:cfabcaa1fd]knowledge[/u:cfabcaa1fd];
[b:cfabcaa1fd]6 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]And to knowledge [u:cfabcaa1fd]temperance[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to temperance [u:cfabcaa1fd]patience[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to patience [u:cfabcaa1fd]godliness[/u:cfabcaa1fd];
[b:cfabcaa1fd]7 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]And to godliness [u:cfabcaa1fd]brotherly kindness[/u:cfabcaa1fd]; and to brotherly kindness [u:cfabcaa1fd]charity[/u:cfabcaa1fd].
[b:cfabcaa1fd]8 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]For if [u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd] be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]9 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]But he that lacketh [u:cfabcaa1fd][b:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/b:cfabcaa1fd][/u:cfabcaa1fd] is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]10 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
[b:cfabcaa1fd]11 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
[b:cfabcaa1fd]12 [/b:cfabcaa1fd]Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always [b:cfabcaa1fd]in remembrance of [u:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/u:cfabcaa1fd][/b:cfabcaa1fd], though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
“These things” are diligence, faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance (self-control/self-discipline), godliness, kindness, and charity (Christian love). “These things” do not include “rebound.” There is not the slightest hint here of confessing sins to instantly recover fellowship or the filling of the Spirit. Whoever lacks [i:cfabcaa1fd]these things [/i:cfabcaa1fd]is blind; it is not whoever lacks “rebound.” Peter will always remind the saints of [i:cfabcaa1fd]these things[/i:cfabcaa1fd]; he never once reminds them to name and cite their sins to instantly recover fellowship or the filling of the Spirit. In fact, all the apostles remind the saints to pursue these spiritual qualities; and none of them ever remind the saints to confess their sins to be filled with the Spirit. You can play your Greek Game to your heart’s content; you can ramble on in your technical speculations; and no matter how you reword these verses with your so-called “corrected” translations, you still cannot make this passage say, “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit.”
[i:cfabcaa1fd]Peter [b:cfabcaa1fd]deftly [/b:cfabcaa1fd]warns all this, in 2Pet1:9; he uses [b:cfabcaa1fd]deft [/b:cfabcaa1fd]syntax to illustrate what happens if you forget to name sins to God; he [b:cfabcaa1fd]allusively [/b:cfabcaa1fd]reminds them of Paul's Phili3:8, and then Zephaniah 1:17. [/i:cfabcaa1fd][emphasis mine]
Zephaniah 1:17 says, “And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.” This is a warning to the idolaters who “worship the host of heaven upon the housetops” (v. 5). It is not directed at people who wouldn’t “rebound.” Zephaniah doesn’t mention a single word about naming sins to God to recover fellowship. Philippians 3:8 says, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” How can you possibly get “rebound” out of this? This is about as “allusive” as it gets. In fact, it’s so “allusive” that there isn’t a shred of scriptural support for it. Peter is trying to be “deft” here? He’s trying to “deftly” drop a hint that what he really means is “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit”? Why couldn’t he just simply say that? Why is he playing these games with us? Why can’t he just simply say what he means?
[i:cfabcaa1fd]So about 20 years after Peter, when the apostle John wrote 1Jn1:9, this Absolute "Filling" Requirement -- and its Royal Meaning -- [b:cfabcaa1fd]was so well-known, [u:cfabcaa1fd]he didn't have to use the term "Filling"[/u:cfabcaa1fd][/b:cfabcaa1fd]; he only had to remind the reader how ya got it, in 1Jn1:9: name your sins to God.[/i:cfabcaa1fd] [emphasis mine]
Come on, brainout, you can’t be serious. John is writing the perfect, holy, inspired Word of God, and he just figures “Why bother?” With such a crucial aspect of the spiritual life? How careless of John! This “absolute filling requirement” was “so well known”? Where? When? Where in the entire Bible did anyone know about an instant, absolute filling of the Spirit attained through confessing sins? And when Paul was writing Eph 5:18, rather than tell us that confessing sins was necessary for the filling of the Spirit (a very important point, don’t you think?), he just figures “Why bother?” How careless of Paul! What if the apostles had the same careless attitude in all their writing? Suppose that in Acts 16:31, Paul said to the Philippian jailer, [i:cfabcaa1fd]“Thou shalt be saved,” [/i:cfabcaa1fd]and neglected to tell him to [i:cfabcaa1fd]“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” [/i:cfabcaa1fd]because he just figured “Why bother?” Face it, brainout—the absence of [u:cfabcaa1fd]any reference to the filling of the Spirit in 1 John 1:9[/u:cfabcaa1fd] and the absence of [u:cfabcaa1fd]any reference to confessing sins in Eph 5:18[/u:cfabcaa1fd] are devastating to your “rebound” doctrine.
The reality that you refuse to face is that there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that just simply tells us to confess our sins to be filled with the Spirit. This constant, non-stop confessing of all sins does not exist anywhere in the Bible, Old Testament or New. You Thieme followers claim to be the champions of grace, yet you impose an impossible legalistic burden on God’s people. As I thoroughly covered in my previous posts, we can never have any real confidence that we are still in fellowship with God as we pray, study, serve, etc. We are in imminent danger of having our Heavenly Father sever all communication with us every moment of every day. In your own words: [i:cfabcaa1fd]“So I must use 1Jn1:9 a bizillion times a day.”[/i:cfabcaa1fd] An impossible standard that our Lord Jesus Christ has never required of His people.
[i:cfabcaa1fd]Keeping up our Unfilled status, [b:cfabcaa1fd]we eventually get [u:cfabcaa1fd]capital punishment[/u:cfabcaa1fd][/b:cfabcaa1fd], 1Jn5:16. Upon which, we live with the Lord forever; but we're [b:cfabcaa1fd]"naked"[/b:cfabcaa1fd], never having developed in our Royal Role for eternity. So we get a low role. [b:cfabcaa1fd]Kinda like a [u:cfabcaa1fd]peasant[/u:cfabcaa1fd]. [/b:cfabcaa1fd][/i:cfabcaa1fd][emphasis mine]
It is still amazing to me how you Thieme followers can make statements like this, while promoting yourselves as the champions of grace and accusing others of legalism. God is going to kill anyone who doesn’t follow your “rebound” doctrine. The vast majority of Christians are dying terrible deaths of sorrow and misery because they dared to disagree with you. I’ve known quite a few other Christians from relatives, friends, church, etc., who have passed away or are facing death. And they’ve all faced it with peace and joy, looking forward to seeing their Lord and Savior face-to-face. And there are accounts of numerous Christians throughout history facing death with great courage and faith, who knew nothing of “rebound” or Thieme’s entire doctrinal system.
You have no right to use such pompous, condescending language regarding your own Christian brethren. You have no right to elevate yourselves as the “winners” and denigrate the rest of us as the “losers.” This is why you stubbornly cling to your pet doctrine of “rebound”—because without it, your whole elitist, cultish doctrinal system would crumble. You would have to admit that you weren’t the only Christians filled with the Spirit after all. You would have to admit that God is not killing off most of His people because they rejected your doctrine. You would have to admit that the rest of us are going to welcome the Lord’s return with great joy and receive our eternal inheritance, just like you will. You would have to admit that everything you’ve said about other Christians was arrogant and wrong.
Looking forward to your response, brainout...
Liberty
(the “naked peasant”)
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 30, 2007 06:57AM
To Spiritual Liberty, reply to your query: Yes, I'm that "brainout". I found this forum because that and other of my website urls were posted here. Else I'd not know such a forum existed.
Spiritual Liberty, sorry you find my Scripture citation to be empty and meaningless. Most Christians I know wouldn't consider any statement of doctrine otherwise valid. PROOF TEXTS are vital, to them and to me. Bible IS proof text, Heb4:12, 1Jn4:1-6. Oh, I'm citing again, as I'm required to do in order to demonstrate the location of a doctrine. Sorry.
Moreover, according to the FAQ and the rules I see in the RRI websites, we are not supposed to be talking doctrines but rather behaviors; so in an earlier post of today (which I don't yet see on screen), I opted out of talking on doctrines here. So to the other issues you raise, I cannot reply, since we aren't supposed to be talking doctrines, rats!
So let me just say it's about the BIBLE, never mind who is the teacher, though my own pastor (via tapes), is and remains Thieme Jr. Else I couldn't get sufficient exegesis to independently read Bible on my own via BibleWorks.
Spiritual Liberty, sorry you find my Scripture citation to be empty and meaningless. Most Christians I know wouldn't consider any statement of doctrine otherwise valid. PROOF TEXTS are vital, to them and to me. Bible IS proof text, Heb4:12, 1Jn4:1-6. Oh, I'm citing again, as I'm required to do in order to demonstrate the location of a doctrine. Sorry.
Moreover, according to the FAQ and the rules I see in the RRI websites, we are not supposed to be talking doctrines but rather behaviors; so in an earlier post of today (which I don't yet see on screen), I opted out of talking on doctrines here. So to the other issues you raise, I cannot reply, since we aren't supposed to be talking doctrines, rats!
So let me just say it's about the BIBLE, never mind who is the teacher, though my own pastor (via tapes), is and remains Thieme Jr. Else I couldn't get sufficient exegesis to independently read Bible on my own via BibleWorks.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: March 30, 2007 07:30AM
Quote
HappyAndFree
GeneZ,
The same thing can be said of you,
"I have seen all sorts of believers who claim to grasp his teachings, when they do not. You do not. So? How can you know if another does? They see it in the same way you do. That does not mean they grasp it. "
You think you grasp it and you don't. You have no clue to what has occurred in your little brainwashed head.
You are nothing more than a dupe of Thieme.
Thank you.....
Dupe?
Too bad I learn from others besides Thieme. Too bad, I have written Berachah on several occassions to let it be known areas that I thought were needing correction and clarification. Too bad I have disagreed with Thieme on numerous occassions.
Too bad. Because if I did not do those things? You would not be telling an untruth.
Thieme is to be my main source of teaching until someone better comes along. If you know of someone better, who offers his tapes for free? Please, let me know.
In Christ, GeneZ
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 30, 2007 09:19AM
SpiritualLiberty, you didn't read the quote of mine which you reposted, so that's why you don't see the connection between 1Jn1:9 and the Filling of the Spirit. IT'S IN THE GREEK, using a very famous LXX Temple-purifying verb, "katharizw", and 1Jn uses the term in parallelism. So here's the quote, reprinted yet again. Bolded text is the key to seeing the connection. You'll have to research for yourself all 94 uses of katharizw in the LXX and then with your own eyes, you will know 1Jn1:9 is required to avoid spiritual apnea.
I'm sorry to have to Repeat the PROOF FROM BIBLE about usage of 1Jn1:9 and its basis, since you think that is somehow meaningless. One must quote authority, and the Authority, is the WORD -- else there is no way to check an interpretation. Citing the Word is not inventing it; exegeting the Word is not inventing it or making a 'theory'.
Again: Thieme didn't write Bible, didn't write the [b:528fc121ed]Jewish [/b:528fc121ed]understanding of how katharizw led to Filling of the Spirit (Jews wrote the Greek LXX); Thieme didn't write the 1Jn parallel in 1:7 and :9, didn't write 2Pet1:9, nor Psalm 32:5 and 66:18. Thieme also didn't invent the term "winner", it's in Revelation. Thieme also didn't invent "loser", it's in the "lose your crown" verse and other verses like it. That Thieme or anyone else merely passes on BIBLE, does not make the BIBLE that person's invention, "theory", etc.
If you all don't want to see the BIBLE, then please stop asking questions because in Christianity, we need to cite the BIBLE to back up something, and it was not written in English. Frankly, the RRI rules do not want us talking about beliefs, but behaviors. I made two posts earlier today on the topic that I would stop posting about doctrines, but I don't see that they've yet cleared with the moderator -- he must be rather busy, lots of traffic in this forum today.
I won't talk about this anymore. It's too plain, and I don't think it's fair to the forum rules -- which we should respect. Study the verse or do not, that's your sacrosanct privilege before the Lord.
Quote
brainout
1. [b:528fc121ed]"Divine Dynasphere" as the Power Structure for the spiritual life, thus accounting for the stress on MECHANICS of thought-skill training.[/b:528fc121ed] That's just a fancy term from the Greek for the Filling Ministry of the Spirit, 1Jn1:9, John 4:23-24, Eph 5:18, John 14:26, 1Cor2, Eph4:23, Eph4:11-16, 1Thess 5:19 (in context), all of James (especially his sarcasm in Jas 2:22, 26, lol), etc. In short, it's Spirit's Filling, Spirit's Power to enable one to perceive and live on Bible. This is what made me move to Houston. [b:528fc121ed]Greek verb katharizw is used for purifying the OT Temple so the Spirit could fill it, all over the LXX (94 occurrences, search on the root). So 1Jn1:7 uses katharizw and parallels that to the Cross, as does Isa53:10 in the LXX; so 1Jn1:9 demonstrates filling in the Temple of the Believer (so to speak) using the same keyword. So a Greek reader couldn't mistake that Filling comes from what the Col. termed 'rebound', which of course ties back to Ps32:5 and 66:18.[/b:528fc121ed]
[b:528fc121ed]Isaiah graphically illustrates how His Thinking paid for sins on the Cross, stressing the fact 21 times (either using naphesh directly, or by showing soul function and synonyms of it, like sakal). The Chapter opens with that stress (Isa52:13) using Ya-skil (hiphil of sakal, witty way to say God-Caused-Thinking-Skill).[/b:528fc121ed] The Isaiah stress is something I'm currently working on (retranslating it over and over, trying to get a poem in English which works like his Hebrew). I haven't heard Thieme exegete Isaiah yet, have the tapes tho. So you decide what you think about it. I live and study alone, so am not in contact with Berachah people except occasionally through forums, my websites, or sometimes #apologetics on undernet.
Criticism is good, if informed.
I'm sorry to have to Repeat the PROOF FROM BIBLE about usage of 1Jn1:9 and its basis, since you think that is somehow meaningless. One must quote authority, and the Authority, is the WORD -- else there is no way to check an interpretation. Citing the Word is not inventing it; exegeting the Word is not inventing it or making a 'theory'.
Again: Thieme didn't write Bible, didn't write the [b:528fc121ed]Jewish [/b:528fc121ed]understanding of how katharizw led to Filling of the Spirit (Jews wrote the Greek LXX); Thieme didn't write the 1Jn parallel in 1:7 and :9, didn't write 2Pet1:9, nor Psalm 32:5 and 66:18. Thieme also didn't invent the term "winner", it's in Revelation. Thieme also didn't invent "loser", it's in the "lose your crown" verse and other verses like it. That Thieme or anyone else merely passes on BIBLE, does not make the BIBLE that person's invention, "theory", etc.
If you all don't want to see the BIBLE, then please stop asking questions because in Christianity, we need to cite the BIBLE to back up something, and it was not written in English. Frankly, the RRI rules do not want us talking about beliefs, but behaviors. I made two posts earlier today on the topic that I would stop posting about doctrines, but I don't see that they've yet cleared with the moderator -- he must be rather busy, lots of traffic in this forum today.
I won't talk about this anymore. It's too plain, and I don't think it's fair to the forum rules -- which we should respect. Study the verse or do not, that's your sacrosanct privilege before the Lord.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: March 30, 2007 09:26AM
I offer documentation for the world see in front of God and everyone, so they can read what Doctors of Theology have stated about what is wrong with Thieme's teachings.
For those [b:d109156fb8]truly[/b:d109156fb8] interested in what other Doctors of Theology have stated about Thieme's false teachings, you can "gift purchase" this booklet from the Bible for Today website at [www.biblefortoday.org] search under "Walter, Rev. Robert".
For those interested in what other recovered ex-Thiemites have testified to, you can read testimonials here [web.archive.org]
No one yet has shown me the verse or verses that Thieme claims 1 right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. Thieme teaching [b:d109156fb8]just that[/b:d109156fb8] identifies Thieme\Berachah as a cult.
I was wondering if brainout, Ephesians, and Genez, would like to explain Thieme's teachings about "[b:d109156fb8]A wife is obligated(by scripture) to do anything, AND THAT MEANS [u:d109156fb8]ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING[/u:d109156fb8] that her husand wants from her in the bedroom[/b:d109156fb8]" How's that for Thieme's emotional disturbance? Would you like to explain?
Truthtesty
For those [b:d109156fb8]truly[/b:d109156fb8] interested in what other Doctors of Theology have stated about Thieme's false teachings, you can "gift purchase" this booklet from the Bible for Today website at [www.biblefortoday.org] search under "Walter, Rev. Robert".
For those interested in what other recovered ex-Thiemites have testified to, you can read testimonials here [web.archive.org]
No one yet has shown me the verse or verses that Thieme claims 1 right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. Thieme teaching [b:d109156fb8]just that[/b:d109156fb8] identifies Thieme\Berachah as a cult.
I was wondering if brainout, Ephesians, and Genez, would like to explain Thieme's teachings about "[b:d109156fb8]A wife is obligated(by scripture) to do anything, AND THAT MEANS [u:d109156fb8]ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING[/u:d109156fb8] that her husand wants from her in the bedroom[/b:d109156fb8]" How's that for Thieme's emotional disturbance? Would you like to explain?
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: March 30, 2007 11:29AM
Ephesians
1st you have not shown me the verse or verses that Thieme claims 1 right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. That alone makes Thieme a cult.
Ephesians quote
Well looky looky here. Looks like you don't learn from your mistakes once again.
Ephesians quote
Incorrect Ephesians. I am presenting information that Thiemites NEVER show recruits when they love bomb them.
Ephesians quote
Again I am presenting information so people can read it for themselves. Yes I know of the disagreements. It is basically the 1st part of Dr. Wall's dissertation. I thought people should be able to read ALL information and make up thier [u:2e8b31d0e6]own minds[/u:2e8b31d0e6], not just accept what Dr. Wall said in his dissertation. Besides there is more than just the Blood issue in Dr. Waite and Rev Walter's book.
Ephesians quote
If Thieme would have gone on to finish his doctorate, Thieme would have found out that Dallas Theological seminary also teaches a "biblical theology" approach. Then you would have known that too.
Ephesians quotes
Paul was in no position to "brace" Peter in Galations. [b:2e8b31d0e6][u:2e8b31d0e6]Jesus said[/u:2e8b31d0e6][/b:2e8b31d0e6] Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That [u:2e8b31d0e6]thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church[/u:2e8b31d0e6]; [b:2e8b31d0e6]and the [u:2e8b31d0e6]gates of hell[/u:2e8b31d0e6] shall not prevail against it. [/b:2e8b31d0e6] Jesus did not say that to Paul, he said it to Peter.
Paul has credibility problems as I have stated before. Paul murdered christians. Paul was a Roman citizen and claimed his citizenship to save his skin, from with his confrontation with Peter and James. Peter's church was scattered 70 ad, when the Romans attacked Israel. Roman christianity became Pauline christianity. I am very skeptical of Paul. I wonder how much work Paul actually did for Rome.
Ephesians quote
Are you a Muslim? And, that's not what I am doing.
Ephesians quote
I have told you what makes Thieme a cult. Show me the verse or verses that Thieme teaches that one right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. You can't.
By the way, Calvin was not only cultic, but criminal. As we see Calvin's murderous fruit in today's world.
I have presented information for people to make up thier own minds. This information is usually censored from Berachah's new recruits. People can read the whole argument and make up thier own minds. That is my approach and 1 of my points. My approach is not to try to create "my version - for everyone under "my command" to blindly submit to", Thieme does. No one knows the total complete true image of God - AS IT WAS DESIGNED. ONLY GOD KNOWS THE COMPLETE TRUE IMAGE OF GOD. Thieme does not have the authority of God, ONLY GOD HAS THE AUTHORITY OF GOD.
That should clear up my intentions and what I am doing, although you have tried to tell me what I am doing, from your perspective.
People are going to continue to disagree, but what is key in learning is approach. You don't have to create a cult to protect your arrogant opinions and slam them down other people's throats. (then later change them and slam the revised edited opinions down people's throats).
The truth stands on it's own, it doesn't need a cult.
Truthtesty
1st you have not shown me the verse or verses that Thieme claims 1 right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. That alone makes Thieme a cult.
Ephesians quote
Quote
Excuse my contraditions in stating I'm exiting the forum, then reappearing, but this really needs to be addressed. Perhaps I can be more available when school is finished (one more month), but I at least need to pop in to make this point.
Well looky looky here. Looks like you don't learn from your mistakes once again.
Ephesians quote
Quote
Testy, what you are doing is just taking any and every person who disagrees with Thieme and using them as a way to fuel your obsessive, never-ending crusade against Thieme.
Incorrect Ephesians. I am presenting information that Thiemites NEVER show recruits when they love bomb them.
Ephesians quote
Quote
The problem here is this -- you are championing two men who disagree with Thieme, but they don't even agree with each other!!
Again I am presenting information so people can read it for themselves. Yes I know of the disagreements. It is basically the 1st part of Dr. Wall's dissertation. I thought people should be able to read ALL information and make up thier [u:2e8b31d0e6]own minds[/u:2e8b31d0e6], not just accept what Dr. Wall said in his dissertation. Besides there is more than just the Blood issue in Dr. Waite and Rev Walter's book.
Ephesians quote
Quote
Wall's belief is, also, not a surprise. Having gotten a doctorate from Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a seminary based on systematic theology, his view simply tows the line on the doctrinal views of the seminary:
If Thieme would have gone on to finish his doctorate, Thieme would have found out that Dallas Theological seminary also teaches a "biblical theology" approach. Then you would have known that too.
Ephesians quotes
Quote
But he did the exact same thing with the "multiplicity of pastors" issue, which I pointed out.
Quote
It was Paul who braced Peter in Galatians
Paul was in no position to "brace" Peter in Galations. [b:2e8b31d0e6][u:2e8b31d0e6]Jesus said[/u:2e8b31d0e6][/b:2e8b31d0e6] Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That [u:2e8b31d0e6]thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church[/u:2e8b31d0e6]; [b:2e8b31d0e6]and the [u:2e8b31d0e6]gates of hell[/u:2e8b31d0e6] shall not prevail against it. [/b:2e8b31d0e6] Jesus did not say that to Paul, he said it to Peter.
Paul has credibility problems as I have stated before. Paul murdered christians. Paul was a Roman citizen and claimed his citizenship to save his skin, from with his confrontation with Peter and James. Peter's church was scattered 70 ad, when the Romans attacked Israel. Roman christianity became Pauline christianity. I am very skeptical of Paul. I wonder how much work Paul actually did for Rome.
Ephesians quote
Quote
Testy, what you are doing is the equivalent to me doing this...as a non-muslim, taking two different dissertations by two different Sunni muslim mullah "doctors" who don't agree with each other on an important topic, walking into a Shi'ite mosque and waving around the dissertations, shouting "you're wrong, you're wrong, look here what the doctors say".
Are you a Muslim? And, that's not what I am doing.
Ephesians quote
Quote
Every great teacher has a group that disagrees with their theology. Do you have any idea how persecuted and ridiculed Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, et al, were? Did the "doctors of theology" of the time agree with them? They didn't even agree with each other! Calvin burned Servetus at the stake for goodness sake! Calvin had areas of theology that have contributed greatly to modern theological thought, but some that I think are absolutely heretical and untenable. Does this mean throw out his whole body of work? Does this make him a cult?
I have told you what makes Thieme a cult. Show me the verse or verses that Thieme teaches that one right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. You can't.
By the way, Calvin was not only cultic, but criminal. As we see Calvin's murderous fruit in today's world.
I have presented information for people to make up thier own minds. This information is usually censored from Berachah's new recruits. People can read the whole argument and make up thier own minds. That is my approach and 1 of my points. My approach is not to try to create "my version - for everyone under "my command" to blindly submit to", Thieme does. No one knows the total complete true image of God - AS IT WAS DESIGNED. ONLY GOD KNOWS THE COMPLETE TRUE IMAGE OF GOD. Thieme does not have the authority of God, ONLY GOD HAS THE AUTHORITY OF GOD.
That should clear up my intentions and what I am doing, although you have tried to tell me what I am doing, from your perspective.
People are going to continue to disagree, but what is key in learning is approach. You don't have to create a cult to protect your arrogant opinions and slam them down other people's throats. (then later change them and slam the revised edited opinions down people's throats).
The truth stands on it's own, it doesn't need a cult.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
HenryL
()
Date: March 30, 2007 11:59AM
Hello everyone, I stumbled on this thread while Googleling R.B. Thieme's name. I haven't read all the replies in this thread so forgive me for not addressing all the points made previously.
I was a member of Berachah Church for approximately ten years (1985 to the mid 90's). I was a true believer in that attended "Bible class" three times a week and once on Sunday. Later, the schedule was reduced to twice a week and two Sunday services.
First of all, let me preface my statements by saying I was not raised in Berachah Church. I came to Berachah while in my late twenties and was raised in Southern Baptist Church.
Do I consider Berachah a cult? Yes! I was in denial about this for several years not wanting to admit that I was taken in. Having said that, I think the association was a positive one at that particular time in my life. The rigid militaristic methodology gave me some stability and direction that was sorely lacking in my life at that time. Isn't that the appeal of most cults for the rudderless souls in the world?
I'm sure my Southern Baptist Background tempered my view of the ministry as opposed to those who were raised in it. I brought certain beliefs with me that made more objective than those that were raised in it. But let me make it clear, I was deceived as many others were. I can only imagine the damage and hurt by those who were raised in the church.
Berachah, though a cult, is not a lot different than most "orthodox", evangelical ministries. How it differs is in degree. What Thieme promoted at Berachah was no less than a [b:bad988426e]priesthood[/b:bad988426e]. Thieme promoted the idea that the word of God was unknowable without the gift of a "pastor/teacher" who was trained in the original languages. Ironically, this is believed by ninety percent of evangelical Christianity.
The degree comes through some of the "doctrines" espoused to foster the idea of the professional priest class. First, the pastor teacher was beyond criticism. Anyone guilty of such was subject to "triple compound discipline" which was administered by the Lord himself. And when I say criticism, I don't mean any malicious gossip, but rather disagreeing or questioning anything that was taught. How does that compare with Paul who commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures to prove his words "whether the the things were so?" Acts 17:11
This idea of the absolute authority of the pastor was furthered by an angry, bullying persona from pulpit. Thieme publicly dressed people down from the pulpit for talking, looking around, or even looking disinterested.
Thieme with his appeal to the "original languages" stood in judgment scriptures by acting as a substitute for the scriptures. He also created his own theological vocabulary to "more accurately" interpret the scriptures. Much of this vocabulary was thinly veiled Greek philosophy. Gnosis as apposed to "epigosis", the epignosis being the higher knowledge as interpreted by the "pastor/teacher. This is no less than the "secret knowledge of the "initiated" of the Greek fraternal system.
Second only to his Bible correcting and standing in judgment of the scriptures, was his doctrine of "Impersonal" love. I think this doctrine was responsible for the inordinate amount of divorce that was present at Berachah. According to Thieme, God deals with out of fellowship believers through impersonal love, never personal love. I won't go into detail, only to say that the idea promoted an indifferent, stoic, dead Christianity that was absolutely destructive to marriages. As members of the body of Christ, and sons of God, the Father cannot deal with us with anything other than personal love. Even in discipline. There is so much more I could say about the my time at Berachah but I'll stop here as it's getting late. Looking forward to hearing from other X-Berachites.
.
I was a member of Berachah Church for approximately ten years (1985 to the mid 90's). I was a true believer in that attended "Bible class" three times a week and once on Sunday. Later, the schedule was reduced to twice a week and two Sunday services.
First of all, let me preface my statements by saying I was not raised in Berachah Church. I came to Berachah while in my late twenties and was raised in Southern Baptist Church.
Do I consider Berachah a cult? Yes! I was in denial about this for several years not wanting to admit that I was taken in. Having said that, I think the association was a positive one at that particular time in my life. The rigid militaristic methodology gave me some stability and direction that was sorely lacking in my life at that time. Isn't that the appeal of most cults for the rudderless souls in the world?
I'm sure my Southern Baptist Background tempered my view of the ministry as opposed to those who were raised in it. I brought certain beliefs with me that made more objective than those that were raised in it. But let me make it clear, I was deceived as many others were. I can only imagine the damage and hurt by those who were raised in the church.
Berachah, though a cult, is not a lot different than most "orthodox", evangelical ministries. How it differs is in degree. What Thieme promoted at Berachah was no less than a [b:bad988426e]priesthood[/b:bad988426e]. Thieme promoted the idea that the word of God was unknowable without the gift of a "pastor/teacher" who was trained in the original languages. Ironically, this is believed by ninety percent of evangelical Christianity.
The degree comes through some of the "doctrines" espoused to foster the idea of the professional priest class. First, the pastor teacher was beyond criticism. Anyone guilty of such was subject to "triple compound discipline" which was administered by the Lord himself. And when I say criticism, I don't mean any malicious gossip, but rather disagreeing or questioning anything that was taught. How does that compare with Paul who commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures to prove his words "whether the the things were so?" Acts 17:11
This idea of the absolute authority of the pastor was furthered by an angry, bullying persona from pulpit. Thieme publicly dressed people down from the pulpit for talking, looking around, or even looking disinterested.
Thieme with his appeal to the "original languages" stood in judgment scriptures by acting as a substitute for the scriptures. He also created his own theological vocabulary to "more accurately" interpret the scriptures. Much of this vocabulary was thinly veiled Greek philosophy. Gnosis as apposed to "epigosis", the epignosis being the higher knowledge as interpreted by the "pastor/teacher. This is no less than the "secret knowledge of the "initiated" of the Greek fraternal system.
Second only to his Bible correcting and standing in judgment of the scriptures, was his doctrine of "Impersonal" love. I think this doctrine was responsible for the inordinate amount of divorce that was present at Berachah. According to Thieme, God deals with out of fellowship believers through impersonal love, never personal love. I won't go into detail, only to say that the idea promoted an indifferent, stoic, dead Christianity that was absolutely destructive to marriages. As members of the body of Christ, and sons of God, the Father cannot deal with us with anything other than personal love. Even in discipline. There is so much more I could say about the my time at Berachah but I'll stop here as it's getting late. Looking forward to hearing from other X-Berachites.
.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
HappyAndFree
()
Date: March 30, 2007 10:32PM
THANK YOU HENRYL!!!!
We've been overwhelmed with Thieme supporters lately. I was raised there and left in the early 80s.
Things are good now for me. God is great, in spite of Thieme.
We've been overwhelmed with Thieme supporters lately. I was raised there and left in the early 80s.
Things are good now for me. God is great, in spite of Thieme.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
ephesians1:3
()
Date: March 30, 2007 11:26PM
brainout - I too am a little confused on exactly what the rules are on this forum regarding getting into lengthy exegesis. I would have thought that the forum, as per its own rules, would have not allowed multiple posts of this fashion, so I initially restrained myself from getting into this a few months back, but Liberty has since posted several lengthy posts that would require several posts involving indepth doctrinal discussions and requring exegesis as an adequate response.
Perhaps a moderator can clear up exactly what is allowed?
At any rate, even in the English, the confession of sin issue is clear.
[i:402d0eaeff]I acknowledged my sin to Thee, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said "I will [b:402d0eaeff]confess[/b:402d0eaeff] my [b:402d0eaeff]transgressions[/b:402d0eaeff] to the Lord"; and Thou didst [b:402d0eaeff]forgive[/b:402d0eaeff] the guilt of my [b:402d0eaeff]sin[/b:402d0eaeff][/i:402d0eaeff] - Psalm 32:5
[i:402d0eaeff]If we [b:402d0eaeff]confess[/b:402d0eaeff] our [b:402d0eaeff]sins[/b:402d0eaeff], He is faithful and just to [b:402d0eaeff]forgive[/b:402d0eaeff] us our [b:402d0eaeff]sins[/b:402d0eaeff] and [b:402d0eaeff]cleanse[/b:402d0eaeff] us from all unrighteousness[/i:402d0eaeff] - 1 John 1:9
Liberty, you would have us believe these verses say something other than what they plainly say. Keep in mind, the issue here, that I tried to start with (I'm not [i:402d0eaeff]avoiding[/i:402d0eaeff] your questions, by the way, I'm trying to start at building block one), was whether or not 1 John 1:9 is salvation oriented, or something that must be ongoing, post-salvation. Notice in the Psalms verse it is the direct confession of David's sins at that time, to God, that resulted in God's forgiveness. (for anyone confused about this - check doctrines of experiential vs. positional sanctification, the Bible is full of them). This is NOT David confessing belief in Yahweh for forgiveness, look at the whole context of the verse, including the preceding verses, which describe the state of David's torment in his current sin. It's as plain as day. Now you can make something else out of this if you want, but I tell you what, in this case, Thieme/Berachah/whatever aside i am GOING TO STICK WITH GOD'S WORD. If this makes me a "slave to an oppressive system" (funny how I don't feel this oppression or burden, as I confess my sins in an ongoing manner daily) then so be it. I'll be a slave to God's Word.
Regarding the pastor-teacher issue, I have already posted the link to brainout's quite excellent and extremely lengthy discussion of this, but those in this forum want a "show me the verse" type proof.
There are multiple doctrines that you can't prove by playing "show me the verse". How about a "one verse proof" of the Trinity? IT DOESN'T EXIST! (and please don't give me 1 John 5:7, a late Vulgate addition) Yet this is the very nature and being of God we're talking about. The doctrine must be [i:402d0eaeff]derived[/i:402d0eaeff], just like thousands of other doctrines. This is what systematic theology is all about.
Testy said:
[i:402d0eaeff]I was wondering if brainout, Ephesians, and Genez, would like to explain Thieme's teachings about "A wife is obligated(by scripture) to do anything, AND THAT MEANS ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING that her husand wants from her in the bedroom" How's that for Thieme's emotional disturbance? Would you like to explain? [/i:402d0eaeff]
I'd be very interested to know if this is an actual quote, or just someone's paraphrase, but I can guarantee you one thing, if it is accurate it's very old. You know, I have Thieme's 1964 marriage series, and there are so many things on there that I disagree with (and some things down right ridiculous) that I don't know where to begin (oh, wait, I'm in a cult, I'm not suppossed to think like that).
But I tell you what, Thieme's marriage series from 1987 (Marriage and Divorce, 1989, lessons 1038-1119 from Ephesians series) is one of the most brilliant works on the subject I've ever heard. It's almost a work of art.
In the series, Thieme covers everything. Including:
1. Sex is a temporary vacation from any authority in the marriage. Either spouse should be free to inititate or submit.
2. The man who asserts his authority in an arrogant manner (rather than simply exercises it in love) is a "jackass"
3. The submission of the woman to the man must be made in the context of the woman responding to the love of her husband. She responds in submission, because the man has exercised his love first. The obedience must be based on love, it cannot be coerced.
and, Henry (welcome to the forum, by the way, glad you're here):
4. Impersonal love is what keeps marriages [b:402d0eaeff]alive[/b:402d0eaeff]. Impersonal love is totally misconstrued in some circles as being some cold mechanical thing. That is NOT the teaching. Impersonal love means - let's give an example:
When your wife is criticizing you for something, you don't respond in turn. You don't turn around and nitpick and [b:402d0eaeff]react[/b:402d0eaeff], and judge. Your job, and what she will love about you is your [b:402d0eaeff]stability[/b:402d0eaeff] in response to her emotion. You might simply be lighthearted about it, change the subject, change the tone with a joke, or simply keep quiet. In some circumstances issues, obviously need to be discussed in a serious fashion (it really depends on the subject being raised), but the key is to not get emotional and bitter and react. [i:402d0eaeff]This[/i:402d0eaeff] is what Thieme means by impersonal love, and this is what [b:402d0eaeff]SAVES[/b:402d0eaeff] marriages.
The series is simply amazing, I would recommend it to any Christian in a state of marriage.
Testy - Yes, information is always great. But you missed my entire point.
By the way, if you don't believe the Bible (as per your statements about Paul) then how can you use disserations by believing Christians to show that another Christians is "wrong". I'm still not getting that. You elevate Jesus' statements above Paul's, but the Bible itself (most of NT written by Paul) is the evidence of Jesus' statements. There is scant extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus even walked the earth. At this point your logic is completely crumbling.
And again, because a pastor has a doctrine one (or even many) doesn't agree with, that does not make him a cult.
Perhaps a moderator can clear up exactly what is allowed?
At any rate, even in the English, the confession of sin issue is clear.
[i:402d0eaeff]I acknowledged my sin to Thee, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said "I will [b:402d0eaeff]confess[/b:402d0eaeff] my [b:402d0eaeff]transgressions[/b:402d0eaeff] to the Lord"; and Thou didst [b:402d0eaeff]forgive[/b:402d0eaeff] the guilt of my [b:402d0eaeff]sin[/b:402d0eaeff][/i:402d0eaeff] - Psalm 32:5
[i:402d0eaeff]If we [b:402d0eaeff]confess[/b:402d0eaeff] our [b:402d0eaeff]sins[/b:402d0eaeff], He is faithful and just to [b:402d0eaeff]forgive[/b:402d0eaeff] us our [b:402d0eaeff]sins[/b:402d0eaeff] and [b:402d0eaeff]cleanse[/b:402d0eaeff] us from all unrighteousness[/i:402d0eaeff] - 1 John 1:9
Liberty, you would have us believe these verses say something other than what they plainly say. Keep in mind, the issue here, that I tried to start with (I'm not [i:402d0eaeff]avoiding[/i:402d0eaeff] your questions, by the way, I'm trying to start at building block one), was whether or not 1 John 1:9 is salvation oriented, or something that must be ongoing, post-salvation. Notice in the Psalms verse it is the direct confession of David's sins at that time, to God, that resulted in God's forgiveness. (for anyone confused about this - check doctrines of experiential vs. positional sanctification, the Bible is full of them). This is NOT David confessing belief in Yahweh for forgiveness, look at the whole context of the verse, including the preceding verses, which describe the state of David's torment in his current sin. It's as plain as day. Now you can make something else out of this if you want, but I tell you what, in this case, Thieme/Berachah/whatever aside i am GOING TO STICK WITH GOD'S WORD. If this makes me a "slave to an oppressive system" (funny how I don't feel this oppression or burden, as I confess my sins in an ongoing manner daily) then so be it. I'll be a slave to God's Word.
Regarding the pastor-teacher issue, I have already posted the link to brainout's quite excellent and extremely lengthy discussion of this, but those in this forum want a "show me the verse" type proof.
There are multiple doctrines that you can't prove by playing "show me the verse". How about a "one verse proof" of the Trinity? IT DOESN'T EXIST! (and please don't give me 1 John 5:7, a late Vulgate addition) Yet this is the very nature and being of God we're talking about. The doctrine must be [i:402d0eaeff]derived[/i:402d0eaeff], just like thousands of other doctrines. This is what systematic theology is all about.
Testy said:
[i:402d0eaeff]I was wondering if brainout, Ephesians, and Genez, would like to explain Thieme's teachings about "A wife is obligated(by scripture) to do anything, AND THAT MEANS ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING that her husand wants from her in the bedroom" How's that for Thieme's emotional disturbance? Would you like to explain? [/i:402d0eaeff]
I'd be very interested to know if this is an actual quote, or just someone's paraphrase, but I can guarantee you one thing, if it is accurate it's very old. You know, I have Thieme's 1964 marriage series, and there are so many things on there that I disagree with (and some things down right ridiculous) that I don't know where to begin (oh, wait, I'm in a cult, I'm not suppossed to think like that).
But I tell you what, Thieme's marriage series from 1987 (Marriage and Divorce, 1989, lessons 1038-1119 from Ephesians series) is one of the most brilliant works on the subject I've ever heard. It's almost a work of art.
In the series, Thieme covers everything. Including:
1. Sex is a temporary vacation from any authority in the marriage. Either spouse should be free to inititate or submit.
2. The man who asserts his authority in an arrogant manner (rather than simply exercises it in love) is a "jackass"
3. The submission of the woman to the man must be made in the context of the woman responding to the love of her husband. She responds in submission, because the man has exercised his love first. The obedience must be based on love, it cannot be coerced.
and, Henry (welcome to the forum, by the way, glad you're here):
4. Impersonal love is what keeps marriages [b:402d0eaeff]alive[/b:402d0eaeff]. Impersonal love is totally misconstrued in some circles as being some cold mechanical thing. That is NOT the teaching. Impersonal love means - let's give an example:
When your wife is criticizing you for something, you don't respond in turn. You don't turn around and nitpick and [b:402d0eaeff]react[/b:402d0eaeff], and judge. Your job, and what she will love about you is your [b:402d0eaeff]stability[/b:402d0eaeff] in response to her emotion. You might simply be lighthearted about it, change the subject, change the tone with a joke, or simply keep quiet. In some circumstances issues, obviously need to be discussed in a serious fashion (it really depends on the subject being raised), but the key is to not get emotional and bitter and react. [i:402d0eaeff]This[/i:402d0eaeff] is what Thieme means by impersonal love, and this is what [b:402d0eaeff]SAVES[/b:402d0eaeff] marriages.
The series is simply amazing, I would recommend it to any Christian in a state of marriage.
Testy - Yes, information is always great. But you missed my entire point.
By the way, if you don't believe the Bible (as per your statements about Paul) then how can you use disserations by believing Christians to show that another Christians is "wrong". I'm still not getting that. You elevate Jesus' statements above Paul's, but the Bible itself (most of NT written by Paul) is the evidence of Jesus' statements. There is scant extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus even walked the earth. At this point your logic is completely crumbling.
And again, because a pastor has a doctrine one (or even many) doesn't agree with, that does not make him a cult.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.