To the Forum:


Per Dr. Wall dissertation:

In his early teaching on the blood of Christ, Thieme also remarked that "when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself.”45 Such a statement aroused some of his critics to challenge his entire teaching on the physical and spiritual death of Christ.46 Apparently Thieme's statement was an unguarded one; for in a personal interview he quickly responded that he did not believe that Jesus died for himself, and he also labeled such a concept as heresy.47


45 Robert B. Thieme, Jr., I John 1: 7b-8 Doc. of the Blood, 23 June 1969.
46 Walter, False Teaching, p. 25.
47 Thieme interview, 26 September 1977.

Truthtesty: Thieme admitted to teaching heretically. I personally remember Thieme teaching this throughout the early 70's. I don't remember Thieme ever telling the gathered Thiemites that it was heretical.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Here is an excerpt from Thieme's "Blood of Christ" Rev. 1973:

Quote

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SPIRITUAL DEATH OF CHRIST
The least understood of the seven types of death* in Scripture is spiritual death. Spiritual death is SEPARATION FROM GOD IN TIME. It dates back to the DAY on which Adam, of his own free will, chose to disobey God. At that very moment of his fall he died spiritually and was separated from God immediately; for God had warned Adam, "... In the DAY that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die" (Gen. 2:17). The literal Hebrew translation is: "... In the DAY that thou eatest thereof, dying [spiritual death] thou shalt die [physical death]." Now, the day he ate of the fruit, he did not drop dead; in fact, he did not die physically until 930 years after he sinned (Gen. 5:5). When the Bible says that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), it refers to SPIRITUAL DEATH! Physical death is not the penalty of sin! Therefore, it is the spiritual death of Christ which paid for our sins, not His physical death. PHYSICAL DEATH IS A RESULT OF SPIRITUAL DEATH: BUT PHYSICAL DEATH IS NEVER SPIRITUAL DEATH.

Truthtesty: Notice Thieme capitalized DAY.

Truthtesty: Thieme's [u:547d433cdb]extremist literal interpretation [/u:547d433cdb]of the word Yowm to refer to a 24 hour day is key to Thieme's assumption. Although, Yowm is used to represent a 24 hour day, it is also used to represent time or a period of time.

Definition - Yowm
day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
[b:547d433cdb]time, period (general) [/b:547d433cdb]
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow

[bible1.crosswalk.com]




Thieme quote:

Quote

Now, the day he ate of the fruit, he did not drop dead; in fact, he did not die physically until 930 years after he sinned (Gen. 5:5). When the Bible says that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), it refers to SPIRITUAL DEATH! Physical death is not the penalty of sin! Therefore, it is the spiritual death of Christ which paid for our sins, not His physical death.

Truthtesty: Thieme dogmatically states that since Adam didn't "drop dead" in a 24 hour period that the "wages of sin is death" is referring only to the SPIRITUAL DEATH and definitely not the physical death. This extremist interpretation of DAY/yowm is the basis for Thieme's attack on most bible believing christian belief for the past 2000 years. It is clear that Thieme is "playing" with [b:547d433cdb]what is literal [/b:547d433cdb]and [b:547d433cdb]what is symbolic[/b:547d433cdb]. It would be just as easy to assume (from thieme's faulty logic) that a day/yowm is 930 years (yowm being symbolic of a time period) and that the physical death(and spiritual death) are literal death in "wages of sin". Instead it was Thieme's ulterior motive to attack basic christian belief, so Thieme chose [b:547d433cdb]not[/b:547d433cdb] to teach that yowm can also be translated time or period of time. If Thieme had taught that yowm could be translated period of time, it would have negated Thieme's entire theory.

Truthtesty: It is more accurate to assume and say "we are not exactly certain" or "there are other legitimate possible translations", than to force a faulty premature conclusion.

Truthtesty: Thieme knows exactly what he is doing and he knows exactly what he is asking for:

Excerpt Thieme's "Blood of Christ"

Quote

Apparently few people understand that the blood mentioned in such passages as John 19:30-37, Colossians 1:19-22, 1 Peter 1:18-19, Hebrews 9:2, and Revelation 1:5, is symbolic. It does not refer to Christ's literal blood, and the "shedding of blood" does not mean that He bled to death. I realize that I am "bucking the tiger" when I teach this. It's like taking away someone's good luck charm, for if anyone departs from the old cliches and says the "blood" does not refer to the literal blood of Christ's veins, he is also branded a liberal and/or an heretic!

Walters and Dr. Waite quote:

Quote

D. THIEME ERRONEOUSLY SETS UP A “STRAW MAN” WHEN HE STATES THAT FUNDAMENTAL PREACHERS BELIEVE THAT CHRIST “BLED TO DEATIH” ON THE CROSS. ANOTHER OBSERVATION THAT OUGHT TO BE MADE AT THIS POINT IS THAT PASTOR THIEME TAKES PERHAPS HALF OF HIS BOOKLET TO SET UP A FALSE “STRAW MAN OR DUMMY,” IN ORDER THEREBY TO DISCREDIT GODLY PASTORS WHO DO NOT GO ALONG WITH HIS “GIMICKS” AND FALSE TEACHING. THE “STRAW MAN” IN HIS LATEST BOOKLET IS THE FALSE PICTURE HE DRAWS OF FUNDAMENTAL PREACHERS, WHOM HE ATTACKS INFERENTIALLY, BY HIS VEHEMENT DECLARATION THAT OUR LORD JESUS DID NOT “BLEED TO DEATH” ON THE CROSS!

1. [b:547d433cdb]FUNDAMENTAL MINISTERS [u:547d433cdb]DO NOT [/u:547d433cdb]TEACH THAT “CHRIST BLED TO DEATH” ON THE CROSS [/b:547d433cdb]IT IS INTERESTING THAT HE WOULD TAKE SUCH GREAT PAINS AND WASTE SO MANY PAGES OF PRINT TO DEVELOP A PROOF AGAINST SOMETHING WHICH NO FUNDAMENTAL PASTOR HAS EVER BELIEVED OR TAUGHT ANYWAY! THAT CHRIST “BLED TO DEATH ON THE CROSS” HAS NEVER BEEN HELD AND HAS NEVER BEEN TAUGHT BY FUNDAMENTAL MINISTERS IN ANY FUNDAMENTAL CHURCHES IN THE UNITED STATES, TO MY KNOWLEDGE! THUS, ABOUT HALF OF THIS BOOKLET IS ACTUALLY POINTLESS AND REALLY ABSURD! THAT IS, IT IS POINTLESS AND ABSURD, UNLESS THIEME IS DELIBERATELY DOING WHAT THIS WRITER BELIEVES--THAT IS DELIBERATELY SETTING UP A “STRAW MAN” IN ORDER TO ATTACK IT, IN ORDER THEREBY TO DISCREDIT ALL PASTORS AND TEACHERS WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS HERESY.

search "False Teaching of R. B. Thieme, Jr. " ( [www.biblefortoday.org] )

Dr. Wall dissertation:

Quote

Thieme's position evaluated. Thieme is correct in observing that the term blood of Christ is a pregnant term with figurative significance. The problem with Thieme's interpretation is that he restricts the term solely to the spiritual death of Christ and fails to see that it includes not only his spiritual death but also his physical blood and the whole act of dying physically. Such a use of the term is a common literary device in the New Testament known as a “synecdoche,” that is “a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole.”28 Acts 27:37 (A.V.)furnishes an example: "We were in all in the ship two hundred three score and sixteen souls." Here souls is a synecdoche for the whole person. The "blood of Christ" is a synecdoche for the entire event of the crucifixion of Christ on Golgotha, which included the nailing of His hands and feet, His bleeding, His 27 Walter, False Teachings, p. 21 28 Random House Dictionary, p. 1442. 23 blood, all of His physical suffering of the cross, His separation from the Father as He bore the sins of the world, His physical death, and the piercing of His side.

Thielicke "Between God and Satan" (referencing Matthew 4:6) quote

Quote

But if it were so, why should Jesus be able to use the word-weapon and the word-thrust more effectively and with greater justice than the devil? The word of God with which Jesus opposes the devil has higher authority solely and exclusively because for him, for Jesus, it represents the authority beneath which he stands. The word of God is only God's word and only his authority, as long as we ourselves humbly and obediently stand beneath it, as 'prisoners' of Jesus Christ (Eph. 3.1). If we 'exploit' it, if for ulterior motives we say'Lord, Lord' (Matthew), [b:547d433cdb]then instead of being the word of God this word becomes a word of the Accuser[/b:547d433cdb]. That is why Jesus says to the people (Luke 6.46), 'Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?' That means: You do indeed use pious words; you turn your eyes up to heaven, and seem to be on intimate terms with God; you talk the language of Canaan; you say 'Lord, Lord' and 'God says'; and yet all this is lies and a mean device of Satan. For you do not have the slightest idea what that word means, and thus you deprive it of all authority.
Thus it comes about that the frivolous and unauthorised use of God's promise to send his helping angels becomes in the mouth of the tempter really and truly a word of the devil. And so it was and still is. Newspapers, books, partisan pamphlets issued by the enemies of God—naturally take their stand on the fact of God. Naturally they have 'religion deep in them'—these newspapers, books and pamphlets are full to overflowing with quotations from scripture plucked out of their context and distorted into a hellish grimace. It is not God, but the Ape of God that speaks here—with words borrowed from the Lord himself. p. The Ape of God always uses the same tricks, and only changes I the shape in which he meets us. Sometimes he comes like a I preacher with unctuous, seductive voice; sometimes he masquerades as a mighty hero; sometimes he appears erect and imposing like the statue of a reformer and religious liberator. How humbly he can say 'Lord, Lord'; how illuminating do his words sound: 'Lo, here is the Christ, there is the Christ'! How well his Bible texts relieve our anxiety; how pleasantly his harmonium makes music, how thunderously his giant-organ peals in worship!
But we know now why these words become words of the tempter, why they have no authority. We know now why Jesus alone has the power, the shattering power to say: 'Again it is written—this alone and nothing else."

Truthtesty

A pastor in 1976 giving a talk about Thieme Jr's influence on church members.

Split into 3 audio tracks; streaming or download. Link below.

(Note: there are a couple of silent gaps for a few seconds on track 2? where the speaker turns over the tape recorder and then continues.)

[www.4shared.com]

Thank you for posting that.hat really put some perspective on what that man had done, and now his son is doing...

I've been married to a taper for 4 years now. I really love my wife, but this is one area that brings me the greatest sorrow and frustration. It like being around somebody who goes around declaring the world is flat.

Anyway do former tapers have any suggestions on how to pry my wife away from the destructive ministry of the Theimes?

Her mother is a taper as well so my bride has been one her whole life (30+), we live in Houston, but the children (1 & 2) and I attend a local bible church. She doesn't come, says it will screw up her 'doctrine', I try to encourage, but sometimes I just get tired.

My biggest worry is that my girls will get sucked into the trapped these heresies.

kcjones

KC. Pray for her. Try to get her to read the Bible and submit to the authority of the Bible over the Thiemite teachings rather than trying to subject the plain teaching of the Bible to Thieme's system.

Get her to read Hebrews 10:24-25 among others and explain what is says vs. some rationalized response to explain the plain meaning away. Mostly, get her to read her Bible.

Hopefully God will bless her and open her eyes.

kcjones,

You have been sent a private mail message.

Some interesting developments here. Ephesians said quite a while back that he was posting for the last time (after he said he’d give us a study on “rebound,” which he never gave us). Then he comes back with a few more posts. And he says he’s trying to present his “rebound” doctrine from “building block one.” But again he never gives us his study on “rebound.” And now he says he’s leaving the forum again. Galiban said he would not be coming back after my first response to him. Then he too changed his mind and started posting again. And now we haven’t heard from him for quite some time. Brainout came in promoting Thieme’s doctrines, then said he was leaving and got himself banned. And GeneZ hasn’t posted since my rebuttal of his “rebound” post over three weeks ago. Hmmm…

These posts on the “right pastor” issue will be addressed primarily to ephesians and Galiban, since most of my debating has been with them, and I figure they’ll still check in to see what’s being posted…[/color:72c0181afd]

ephesians wrote:

[i:72c0181afd]At this point this forum has, unfortunately, devolved into gossip and slander. We now have posters singing the praises of friends who challenge 64 year old pastors to fist fights.

I can't be a part of this anymore, it was nice talking with everyone.[/i:72c0181afd]

ephesians,

This is no excuse for ending your dialogue with me and leaving so many important theological questions unanswered. Every issue I have raised has been a Biblical issue. And I have already offered to correspond with you outside this forum. Is “gossip and slander” really the problem here? Or is this just an excuse to avoid my challenges?

Regarding the doctrine of “right pastor”…

You wrote:

[i:72c0181afd]And I do believe this should rest with one head pastor, and that's the position Thieme took. The example is set by Paul. It was Paul who braced Peter in Galatians, it was Paul who wrote the Corinthians and put them back into line when the church began to divide. The churches where Paul was set up as head pastor, he was the authority.[/i:72c0181afd] [02/18]

First of all, Paul was an [i:72c0181afd]apostle[/i:72c0181afd]. He had very unique authority. In fact, as an inspired communicator of God’s Word, he had authority over all the churches. And likewise, so did the other apostles being used by God to bring His inspired Word to His people. But there is no one alive today who has the same kind of authority. And you have to be consistent here. In your references to Paul’s authority and his confrontation with Peter, you are presenting Paul as having supreme authority over [u:72c0181afd]all[/u:72c0181afd] the churches he established, and even over the other apostles. But you are comparing apples and oranges. No pastor has ever had this kind of authority, and never will. The apostles were of course great examples of faithfulness and Christian living. But you can not use Paul’s apostolic authority over [u:72c0181afd]many churches[/u:72c0181afd] to justify Thieme’s concept of the pastor’s authority over [u:72c0181afd]a church[/u:72c0181afd].

[i:72c0181afd]It was Paul who braced Peter in Galatians…[/i:72c0181afd]

You’re actually trying to use Paul’s rebuke of Peter to justify Thieme’s “right pastor” doctrine? How is Paul’s rebuke of another apostle in any way relevant to Thieme’s doctrine of “right pastor-teacher”? How do we know that Paul himself never needed a rebuke from his brethren? What about Acts 15, where James is the more prominent figure who gives the final verdict on the issue being debated? The very fact that there was even a debate in the first place shows that Paul was not above his fellow apostles.

Paul was an apostle with special authority because of the particular calling he had from the Lord. But we cannot make a pastor into an apostle. To understand New Testament church order, we must look at how the churches established by Paul functioned after he left. We must consider how the permanent leaders of these churches exercised their leadership after Paul had established their assembly and moved on to his next evangelistic mission.

The leaders of an assembly are commonly called “elders.” These are men who have grown spiritually and are ready to take on the sacrifices of ministering to the brethren and the assembly. Some of them teach the Word and some do not (1 Tim 5:17-18 ), but they have all taken on the role of leadership and responsibility. And naturally the elders will include those who teach the Word and the apostles themselves (1 Peter 5:1).

[b:72c0181afd]1 Tim 5:17-18 [/b:72c0181afd]Let the [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, [b:72c0181afd]especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.[/b:72c0181afd] For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

[b:72c0181afd]1 Peter 5:1 [/b:72c0181afd]The [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]which are among you I exhort, [b:72c0181afd]who am also an elder[/b:72c0181afd], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being [b:72c0181afd]examples to the flock[/b:72c0181afd].

All elders should “rule well,” but not all of them will teach doctrine. They all have authority, and they shepherd the flock together. There is never to be one man with authority over all the rest. We also see Titus performing similar work to Paul’s in Titus 1:4-5, where Paul tells him to “ordain elders in every city.” Obviously, Paul and Titus could not be the “right pastor-teacher” of all these churches. A “right pastor” is only “assigned” to one congregation, remember? The work of men like Paul and Titus does not support Thieme’s doctrine in any way. And the fact that Paul and Titus ordained [u:72c0181afd]multiple elders[/u:72c0181afd] (as opposed to one head elder) in each church actually refutes Thieme’s doctrine.

Elders are simply leaders with responsibility and authority in the assembly, who are called to be “examples to the flock.” Their responsibility may include teaching the Word of God, or their responsibility may lie in other areas, such as administrative leadership, and ministering to the spiritual and physical needs of the brethren, such as visiting and praying with the sick (James 5:14). Regardless of their particular calling from the Lord, they are to be [b:72c0181afd]examples [/b:72c0181afd]of Christian conduct and spiritual living to the rest of the people.

[b:72c0181afd]James 5:14 [/b:72c0181afd]Is any sick among you? let him call for the [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]of the [b:72c0181afd]church[/b:72c0181afd]; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

In Acts 20, we have Paul’s exhortation to “the [i:72c0181afd]elders [/i:72c0181afd]of the church.”

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 20:16-17[/b:72c0181afd] For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. And from Miletus he sent to [u:72c0181afd][b:72c0181afd]Ephesus[/b:72c0181afd][/u:72c0181afd], and called [b:72c0181afd]the [u:72c0181afd]elders[/u:72c0181afd] of the [u:72c0181afd]church[/u:72c0181afd][/b:72c0181afd].

The pastor at my former church tried to say that Paul was holding a “pastors’ conference” here for pastors from different churches. But the passage does not say that. It simply says that Paul called a meeting of the elders of the church at Ephesus.

Paul continues addressing the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20:28:

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 20:28 [/b:72c0181afd]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you [b:72c0181afd]overseers[/b:72c0181afd], to [b:72c0181afd]feed the church of God[/b:72c0181afd], which he hath purchased with his own blood.

This passage creates a real problem for Thieme. Paul tells the elders of Ephesus that they are “[b:72c0181afd]overseers[/b:72c0181afd]” over the flock, and that they must “[b:72c0181afd]feed [/b:72c0181afd]the church.” This is not addressed to one man. It is not addressed to pastors of different churches. It is addressed to a body of elders from one church. This passage by itself is enough to destroy Thieme’s “right pastor” doctrine. And it certainly refutes your statement that the leadership should “rest with one head pastor.”

Again, we see consistent references to “the [i:72c0181afd]elders [/i:72c0181afd]of the church,” rather than “the [i:72c0181afd]elder [/i:72c0181afd]of the church.” We see the same kind of church order being followed in Acts and carrying over to the epistles.

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 14:21-23 [/b:72c0181afd]And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]in every [b:72c0181afd]church[/b:72c0181afd], and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 15:1-2 [/b:72c0181afd]And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to [b:72c0181afd]Jerusalem [/b:72c0181afd]unto the apostles and [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]about this question.

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 15:4-6[/b:72c0181afd] And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the [b:72c0181afd]church[/b:72c0181afd], and of the apostles and [b:72c0181afd]elders[/b:72c0181afd], and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 15:22-23 [/b:72c0181afd]Then pleased it the apostles and [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]with [b:72c0181afd]the whole church[/b:72c0181afd], to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 16:4[/b:72c0181afd] And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]which were [b:72c0181afd]at Jerusalem[/b:72c0181afd].

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 20:16-17 [/b:72c0181afd]For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]of the [b:72c0181afd]church[/b:72c0181afd].

[b:72c0181afd]Acts 21:17-18 [/b:72c0181afd]And when we were come to [b:72c0181afd]Jerusalem[/b:72c0181afd], the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]were present.

Titus 1:4-5 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]in every [b:72c0181afd]city[/b:72c0181afd], as I had appointed thee:

[b:72c0181afd]James 5:14 [/b:72c0181afd]Is any sick among you? let him call for the [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]of the [b:72c0181afd]church[/b:72c0181afd]; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

[b:72c0181afd]1 Peter 5:1-3[/b:72c0181afd] The [b:72c0181afd]elders [/b:72c0181afd]which are among you I exhort, [b:72c0181afd]who am also an elder[/b:72c0181afd], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; [b:72c0181afd]neither as being lords over God’s heritage[/b:72c0181afd], but being examples to the flock.

There is never any reference to “the [i:72c0181afd]elder [/i:72c0181afd]of the church.” It is always “the [i:72c0181afd]elders [/i:72c0181afd]of the church.” The Lord never gives one man authority over an entire assembly. This is a safeguard against religious tyranny. It prevents one man’s religious opinions from taking precedence over the Word of God. And this is why every pope, cult leader, and elitist, controlling pastor rejects this principle—because it prevents them from exercising control over the flock.

Still waiting for a response from you, ephesians…

Liberty

Galiban wrote:

[i:0485d18142]A Pastor is [u:0485d18142]not held accountable[/u:0485d18142] to the congregation.

[b:0485d18142]The Pastor Teacher is [u:0485d18142]in complete control of his church[/u:0485d18142] and [u:0485d18142]only answerable to God[/u:0485d18142].

The congregation should submit to his teachings as a [u:0485d18142]slave[/u:0485d18142] to his master.[/b:0485d18142][/i:0485d18142]

Galiban,

This is a cultic mentality if I ever saw one—the blind submission of the people to one leader. And you are certainly representing Thieme accurately here. This is exactly what Thieme and his followers teach.

[b:0485d18142]1 Tim 5:19[/b:0485d18142] Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

[i:0485d18142]This is referring to a Deacon or another elder in the church.[/i:0485d18142]

Galiban, you do not understand what an elder is. From the overall usage of the word “elder” in the NT, it is quite clear that elders include pastors who teach the Word. And the fact that an accusation [i:0485d18142]can [/i:0485d18142]be received against an elder disproves your statement that a pastor is “only answerable to God.” Paul goes on to say in verse 20, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” Elders are even subject to rebuke by their brethren when they get too far out of line. They are [u:0485d18142]examples[/u:0485d18142] to the flock, and they have a greater responsibility and accountability for living godly lives and practicing what they preach. Your statement that a pastor is not accountable to anyone has no basis in Scripture.

In 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, Paul gives a comprehensive list of qualifications that must be met by any man who would lead the flock and preach the Word. He must be mature, loving, and hospitable, and he cannot be easily provoked to anger, or be an alcoholic or a womanizer. If he has an ongoing problem with alcohol or women, or he degrades and insults his brethren, either publicly or privately, he does not belong behind the pulpit. And he is directly accountable to the other elders and the brethren for his conduct. The Lord Jesus Christ takes great care for His flock, and He is very specific concerning who should be leading His people in their assemblies. It is truly a cultic mentality that says a man should stay in authority with no accountability to others for his behavior and actions.

Thieme’s idea of certain believers being “assigned” to a certain pastor is based primarily on these two scriptures:

[b:0485d18142]Acts 20:28 [/b:0485d18142]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

[b:0485d18142]1 Peter 5:2-3[/b:0485d18142] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.

Thieme taught that certain believers are “assigned” to a certain pastor, and vice versa. But this is nothing more than an assumption that he tries to read into these verses. No matter how you translate these verses, or “correct” the translation, there is nothing here to support Thieme’s doctrine. The believers in the assembly are commanded to honor the elders. And the elders are responsible for the believers in the assembly. That’s all these verses are saying; there is nothing here about a specific elder for certain believers. We are never “assigned” to a “right” elder. Again, Paul’s exhortation in Acts 20 is addressed to the [u:0485d18142]body of elders[/u:0485d18142] from the Ephesian church. Paul simply exhorts them to be vigilant because they are the overseers of the flock. But he says nothing about certain sheep being “assigned” to a specific elder. 1 Peter 5:1-3 is a simple exhortation to the elders in the churches to be faithful in their ministry to God’s people. They are responsible for the brethren in the assembly, and must be good examples to them. But this has nothing to do with a certain group of believers being “assigned” to one pastor. We cannot go beyond what is written and start reading our own assumptions into the passage.

[i:0485d18142]Notice in 1st Timothy 6:21 some have fallen from the faith by professing false doctrines. Is Timothy instructed to admonish them?[/i:0485d18142]

This is completely irrelevant to the “right pastor” issue.

[b:0485d18142]1 Tim 6:20-21[/b:0485d18142] O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

There is nothing here to imply that Timothy should not admonish those who profess false doctrines. In fact, throughout the NT, we see the apostles doing just that.

[i:0485d18142]It is sufficient to say “give me scriptures that state another pastor teacher should admonish anyone but his own flock.”[/i:0485d18142]

I could just as easily say, “Give me one scripture that says a pastor should [i:0485d18142]not [/i:0485d18142]admonish anyone outside the assembly where he is teaching.” We are exhorted repeatedly in the NT to go to a brother who is living in sin or straying from the truth, and reach out to him and challenge him if necessary. And we are never once told that we can only do this for people in our own assembly. The apostles certainly did not limit their rebukes to the church they had supposedly been “assigned” to. We have the example of John and Diotrophes in 3 John 1:9-10:

[b:0485d18142]3 John 1:9-10 [/b:0485d18142]I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

And the example of Paul and Archippus in Colossians 4:16-17:

[b:0485d18142]Col 4:16-17 [/b:0485d18142]And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it.

[i:0485d18142]A pastor instructs his assigned congregation. Not other pastors. Give me one scripture to refute this. They should [b:0485d18142]not [/b:0485d18142]spend their lives admonishing Thieme.[/i:0485d18142]

[b:0485d18142]Gal 2:9-13 [/b:0485d18142]And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when [b:0485d18142]Peter [/b:0485d18142]was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from [b:0485d18142]James[/b:0485d18142], he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that [b:0485d18142]Barnabas [/b:0485d18142]also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Here Paul publicly rebukes three different men (Peter, James, and Barnabas) from two different cities (Antioch and Jerusalem). How does this fit into your notion that a pastor should not challenge anyone outside his own church…especially if Paul is supposed to be your “example” of how your “right pastor” functions? When a pastor like Thieme spends his life degrading his Christian brethren, then he should be reproved by other pastors around him. True Christian love does not just allow a brother in Christ to go on and on in his elitism and his insults against his brethren, as well as his serious doctrinal errors, without trying to recover him. “Open rebuke is better than secret love,” and “faithful are the wounds of a friend.”

[i:0485d18142]A pastor instructs his assigned congregation. Not other pastors. Give me one scripture to refute this. … 1st Timothy 1:3,18 , 3:14-15, 4:6 , 4:11 , 5:21 , 6:2-3 , 6:13-14.[/i:0485d18142]

Here again we see your habit of rattling off a string of prooftexts without demonstrating in any way that those scriptures actually support your statements. Of course pastors are instructed to diligently teach the flock, but where in any of these scriptures does it say that they cannot admonish a fellow pastor who has strayed? In 1 Tim 1:3, Paul instructs Timothy to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” In 1 Tim 1:18 he encourages him to “war a good warfare.” In 1 Tim 3:14-15, he tells Timothy he is writing these things in order that Timothy would know how to conduct himself “in the house of God.” In 1 Tim 4:6, he tells him to “put the brethren in remembrance of these things” as a “good minister of Jesus Christ,” and in 4:11, he says, “These things command and teach.” In 1 Tim 5:21, he tells Timothy to “observe these things” (Paul’s instructions) without showing partiality to one brother over another. In 1 Tim 6:2, he gives instructions to slaves and laborers, and in 6:13-14, he exhorts Timothy to “keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” How can you possibly get [i:0485d18142]“A pastor should never challenge another pastor”[/i:0485d18142] out of this?

[i:0485d18142]They should be expending every bit of effort instructing their assigned flock.
Acts 20:28, 1Peter 5:1-3. 1st Timothy 4:11, 1st Timothy 1:3,18 , 3:14-15, 4:6 , 4:11 , 5:21 , 6:2-3 , 6:13-14. 1st Timothy 5:7, 1st Timothy 4:15, 1st Timothy 3:14-15, 1st Timothy 4:1-10. I could go on……[/i:0485d18142]

Same thing here. Another string of prooftexts without demonstrating any relevance to the issue being discussed. Could you please show me where any of these scriptures say a pastor (or any Christian) is not allowed to challenge another Christian brother outside the assembly he attends?

[i:0485d18142][b:0485d18142]The [u:0485d18142]congregation[/u:0485d18142] should [u:0485d18142]submit to his teachings[/u:0485d18142] as a [u:0485d18142]slave[/u:0485d18142] to his master.[/b:0485d18142] They are to give a Pastor Teacher full respect. This verse states that if the congregation respects the Pastor Teacher they will not incidentally blaspheme his doctrine. The congregation that disrespects a Pastor Teacher is not worthy to judge a doctrinal viewpoint whether it be right or wrong…… [u:0485d18142]1st Timothy 6:1[/u:0485d18142][/i:0485d18142]

[b:0485d18142]1 Tim 6:1[/b:0485d18142] Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

The most extremely obvious problem you have here is that this verse [i:0485d18142]does not even mention a pastor or congregation[/i:0485d18142]. Common sense, Galiban—this is about slaves and laborers obeying their masters. Paul doesn’t mention a single word about the congregation of the assembly obeying the pastor in the same way. This is, yet again, another empty assumption that you read into the text to try to make your doctrine work.

[i:0485d18142]We are to learn Theology from our church, not a seminary. Show me scriptures that shows a Pastor Teacher is to study at a college or seminary.[/i:0485d18142]

I thought a pastor had to be Greek scholar? Isn’t Thieme adamant that a pastor has to be educated in Greek before he can teach the Bible? You can’t have it both ways, Galiban. You can’t say a pastor doesn’t need a Bible college and then turn around and say he has to be a Greek scholar. Either he needs a Bible college education or he doesn’t.

Still waiting for your response as well, Galiban…

Liberty

Galiban wrote:

[i:4f3dd58aa3]Revelation 2-7. The “one who overcomes” eats of the Tree of Life. This by default states that some in heaven will not overcome.[/i:4f3dd58aa3]

This is just another one of your assumptions, Galiban. John makes no reference in this verse to anyone in heaven who is not an overcomer. All he says is that the overcomer eats of the Tree of Life. Here is what John, the author of Revelation, has to say about “he that overcometh”:

[b:4f3dd58aa3]1 John 5:4-5[/b:4f3dd58aa3] For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that [b:4f3dd58aa3]believeth that Jesus is the Son of God[/b:4f3dd58aa3]?

Every believer in Jesus Christ is an overcomer. And every believer eats of the Tree of Life.

[b:4f3dd58aa3]Rev 22:1-2[/b:4f3dd58aa3] And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the [b:4f3dd58aa3]tree of life[/b:4f3dd58aa3], which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and [b:4f3dd58aa3]the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations[/b:4f3dd58aa3].

The leaves of the tree of life are for “the healing of the nations,” with no exceptions or exclusions.

[b:4f3dd58aa3]Rev 2:11 [/b:4f3dd58aa3]He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the [b:4f3dd58aa3]second death[/b:4f3dd58aa3].

Revelation 2:11 clearly shows that every born-again believer is an overcomer. The second death is of course the lake of fire. But the overcomer can not be hurt by the lake of fire. And this is true of every believer, regardless of their spirituality or carnality. Similarly, we read in Revelation 20:6:

[b:4f3dd58aa3]Rev 20:6 [/b:4f3dd58aa3]Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first [b:4f3dd58aa3]resurrection[/b:4f3dd58aa3]: on such [b:4f3dd58aa3]the second death hath no power[/b:4f3dd58aa3], but they shall be [b:4f3dd58aa3]priests of God and of Christ[/b:4f3dd58aa3], and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Every born-again believer is included in the resurrection. Every born-again believer is a priest of God. And every born-again believer is safe from the second death.

[b:4f3dd58aa3]Rev 21:7-8[/b:4f3dd58aa3] [b:4f3dd58aa3]He that [u:4f3dd58aa3]overcometh[/u:4f3dd58aa3] [/b:4f3dd58aa3]shall [b:4f3dd58aa3]inherit [u:4f3dd58aa3]all[/u:4f3dd58aa3] things[/b:4f3dd58aa3]; and [b:4f3dd58aa3]I will be his God, and he shall be my son[/b:4f3dd58aa3]. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, [b:4f3dd58aa3]shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone[/b:4f3dd58aa3]: which is the [b:4f3dd58aa3]second death[/b:4f3dd58aa3].

Of the overcomer God says, “I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” This is true of all believers. And he is promised he will inherit [i:4f3dd58aa3]all things[/i:4f3dd58aa3]. The overcomer is then contrasted with the “unbelieving” world characterized by murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, liars, etc. (And we know that Christians can also fall into some of these things, but these things are not characteristic of the Church.) And these are obviously unbelievers because their fate is the “second death.”

[i:4f3dd58aa3]Revelation 2-11 states you will not [b:4f3dd58aa3]loss any family members [/b:4f3dd58aa3]to Hell if you are “one who overcomes”[/i:4f3dd58aa3]

[b:4f3dd58aa3]Rev 2:11 [/b:4f3dd58aa3]He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Revelation 2:11 says nothing about family members. Where in the entire Bible are we ever promised that all our family members will be believers if we become “winners”?

Have you considered the following scriptures?

[b:4f3dd58aa3]Luke 12:51-53 [/b:4f3dd58aa3]Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be [b:4f3dd58aa3]five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three[/b:4f3dd58aa3]. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[b:4f3dd58aa3]Mat 10:34-36 [/b:4f3dd58aa3]Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of [b:4f3dd58aa3]his own household[/b:4f3dd58aa3].

Throughout the long history of Roman Catholic persecution of Christians, there have been many faithful martyrs who were betrayed by their unbelieving family members. Are you trying to tell me that all of them were “losers”?

I have also known some very dedicated Thieme followers who have lost family members who were not saved. What about them? Are they doomed to be “losers” now? Once again, you have given us another empty assumption with no Biblical support, that you read into the text to make it fit your doctrine.

To the Forum:


The following excerpt is from Lewis Sperry Chafer's 8 volume set "Systematic Theology"

Chapter XX - Imputed Sin

Volume II page 313-314

Quote

1. the death of christ. The careful student of doctrine, when examining the Scriptures, soon becomes aware of the imperative need of discriminating between physical death and spiritual death, and in no aspect of this great theme is the human mind more impotent than when considering the death of Christ in the light of these distinctions. There could be no doubt about Christ's physical death, even though He, in His humanity, being unfalien, was in no way subject to death; nor was He, in His death, to see corruption (Ps. 16:10); nor was a bone of His body to be broken (John 19:36). On the other hand, Christ's death was a complete judgment of the sin nature for all who are regenerated, and He, as substitute, bore a condemnation which no mortal can compre­hend, which penalty entered far into the realms of spiritual death-separation from God (cf. Matt. 27:46). In His death, He shrank back, not from physical pain, nor from the experience of quitting the physical body, but, when contemplating the place of a sin bearer and the anticipa­tion of being made sin for us, He pleaded that the cup might pass. [b:15ced270fe][u:15ced270fe]The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others[/u:15ced270fe]; yet, [u:15ced270fe]while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacri­fice which He provided, [i:15ced270fe]it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other[/i:15ced270fe][/u:15ced270fe].[/b:15ced270fe]

Clearly Thieme is not following Chafer here.

Chafer [u:15ced270fe]did not [/u:15ced270fe]teach Thieme or anyone else, that Jesus died physically for himself.

Quote

"The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others..."

Chafer classify's the two [u:15ced270fe]aspects [/u:15ced270fe]of Jesus' death

Quote

"while both the [u:15ced270fe]physical and the spiritual aspects of death[/u:15ced270fe] were demanded in that sacri­fice which He provided..."

Thieme definitely disassociates physical death and spiritual death, while Chafer says

Quote

"it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other"

Truthtesty