Quote

Author Message
brainout
Member

Joined: 24 Mar 2007
Posts: 46

Posted: 03-27-2007 12:07 PM Post subject: Truthtesty 1978 was a long time ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seven copies of Dr. Wall's dissertation on my computer from a long time ago, both old and new versions. It was 1978, and you have to ask yourself why DTS would grant a doctorate in theology for a dissertation which is NOT about God.

Because Thieme is teaching false doctrine, and you would have to be completly disoriented from reality to say Dr. Wall's dissertation is not about God and the Word of God.

Quote

brainout (con't) The doctrines discussed in the dissertation are discussed at the most elementary level, a kind of kindergarten version of GOD101. This isn't to say that Dr. Wall was bad. It is to say that a kind of adikia exists when a seminary wants a dissertation on a mere human being for a doctorate which is supposed to represent competence in the STUDY OF GOD.

Intresting isn't it? How Thiemites always claim in thier paranoia that everyone is out to get them and Thieme? (like all cults claim everyone is out to get them) Without producing a shred of evidence brainout says adkia CONSPIRACY! existed between Dr. Wall and Dallas Theological Seminary. brainout offers no proof whatsoever.

It is clear to people of sound mind that Dr. Wall was serving to help clean up Thieme's mess. There would have been a lot less suffering if Thieme could have got God101 right.

brainout, did it ever occur to you that it's more likely that since Thieme was denied his doctorate that Thieme was embittered towards Dallas Theological Seminary? And especially embittered towards Dr. Walvoord (who was president at the time Thieme could not complete his doctorate)? Note also Thieme quit teaching the same year Dr. Walvoord died. So it's quite possible that Thieme's commitment was to teach against historically accepted christianity until the day Dr. Walvoord died, in revenge for being denied his doctorate. Isn't that a possible scenario, brainout?

Quote

brainout (con't) It's ironic that the dissertation Thieme was writing had to stop, due to WWII, so here's this guy years later writing a dissertation on him, from the same seminary. And Blood of Christ is THINKING, which Isaiah says 21 times in the Hebrew (and Greek) texts of Isa52:13-53:12.

Ok I already proved that Thieme's doctoral dissertation was just Thieme's own failure to complete it. It was not because of WWII. This "no doctorate because WWII" business was a lie to cover the real truth. Thieme did not begin his Masters degree until after WWII, let alone beginning his doctorate. Also, Thieme was not active duty during the Korean war, the Bay of pigs, the Vietnam Conflict, the Greneda invasion, the Panama invasion, nor Desert Storm. So another "war excuse" is out of the realm of possibility. Though Thieme did not complete a doctoral dissertation, Thieme did complete a Master's Thesis. [library.dts.edu] Thieme should have taken responsibility for his own failures and Thieme should not have lied to cover his failures. Because now Thieme has no credibiltiy.

Now you want to pass another outlandish claim about the Blood of Christ. This must be one of Thieme's latest heresies. Thieme himself in all his heretical Blood of Christ booklets from 1971 to 1979 never mentioned what your "new" false claim of the Blood of Christ being equal to thinking. Thieme uses the word thinking twice in the 1972 BOC propaganda manual, but it is not used referencing the Blood of Christ. Thieme uses it in one instance to cut down brotherly love and bleeding hearts. In another instance in the 1972 prop manual Thieme uses it to describe the thinking of soldiers. This must be one of Thieme latest twistings. You say "Isaiah says 21 times in the Hebrew (and Greek) texts of Isa52:13-53:12." Hmh intresting. Chafer references (Vol III, pg 125 ; Vol V pg.183) those verses Isa52:13-53:12 specifically to describe "the prediction" in Old Testament prophecy and the humanity of christ in his sacrificial death. Searching all 8 volumes Chafer never says the Blood of Christ is "thinking". Now Thieme is the only one to have arrived at this conclusion, no one else in 2000 year history has come up with this, and even Thieme was'nt aware of this in the 1970s.

Tell me now brainout, what evidence is there other than the facts that you and Thieme are simply trying to disrupt historic christian faith? You're going to need to do a whole lot better than a simple arrogant unfounded claim, when so many of your claims and Thieme's claims, have been proven false. Get a new rickross forum name, sign back in and explain this "new" theory. Straighten us all out brainout. What's the problem? What have you got to lose other than more credibility?



Truthtesty

To the Forum:


I did not know the DTS website would timeout here is Thieme's [b:3e4bb7e331]Master's[/b:3e4bb7e331] thesis.

Armageddon : an investigation of the campaign of the great day of God the Almighty
Thieme, R. B.

Pub date: 1949.
Pages: iii, 69 leaves ;
Copy info: 1 copy available in BOOKSTACKS.
1 copy total in all locations.

Holdings

Call number Copy Material Location
BT888 .T44 1949 2 Book Stacks, Turpin 2d and 3d floors

Just plug the title in here [library.dts.edu] under "search Biblos"



Truthtesty

To brainout:

So what's your final answer? Is it Thieme's heretical view of Jesus' "spiritual death only" = the blood of christ of the 1970's or is it Thieme's recent heretical view of Jesus' blood of christ = "thinking"?

You know, one method police use to determine if a suspect is lying is by watching how the criminal's story changes over time.

Truthtesty

I have spot read some of the posts on this subject and thought I might like to give you some information of which you are abviously unaware.

Dr. William Ames lived from 1576-1633, so I believe you will agree that he lived long before R.B. Thieme, would you not?

[www.apuritansmind.com]

Please see # 7

Hello Misfit,


I do agree that Ames lived before Thieme.


No one here is saying that Jesus did not die spiritually. Both aspects, spiritual and physical, were efficacious. It is Thieme who claimed that Jesus died spiritually only for salvation. It was Thieme who denies the efficacy of the literal blood of Jesus. Also, your Ames fellow obviously thought that the physical and spiritual aspects of Jesus' death were efficacious including the shedding of literal blood. (Evidence: below and including the article you referenced above)

Quote

William Ames (1623)

“Bread and wine are to be used, for nothing more fitly expresses the very close union we gradually come to enjoy with Christ, a union founded on the sacrifice of his body and the shedding of his blood” (The Marrow of Theology, Book One, Chap. XL, sect. 21; p. 212).

Truthtesty

Welcome to the forum, Misfit…

Thank-you for sharing your viewpoint, but this is hardly a new revelation of which we are “obviously unaware.” Most Christians generally agree that Christ was separated from His Father while being judged for our sins, whether they specifically refer to it as His “spiritual death” or not. Some Christians shy away from this term because of those who abuse it—there are some who teach that Christ actually became “guilty” of our sins, while the Bible is clear that He bore the judgment while remaining impeccable. But as long as you specifically define spiritual death here as separation from the Father, then this is a legitimate term to use in reference to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. And again, this is certainly nothing new to us.

Christ’s physical shed blood, however, was also necessary for our salvation. In order to receive the judgment for our sins, He had to be the Perfect Sacrifice, the perfect fulfillment of the Law and of all the prophecies. Without His physical sufferings and death, He would not have fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, He would not have fulfilled the Father’s will, and He therefore would not have been the Perfect Passover Lamb and the Perfect Substitute for us on the Cross. And there would be no salvation. When Thieme taught that Christ’s physical sufferings and death have nothing to do with the “Blood of Christ,” he was wrong. And what made it even worse was his constant denouncing of all who disagreed with him as “losers” and “jackasses.” Even in the article you cited, Ames [i:a9070f306c]never states that the blood of Christ does not include His physical sufferings[/i:a9070f306c]; in fact, as Testy pointed out, his view is quite different from Thieme's. Ames is simply giving a description of the spiritual sacrifice Christ made for us, and citing him does not lend any support to Thieme’s doctrine. Also, Ames was a Calvinist theologian—limited atonement, unconditional election, the whole 9 yards. According to Thieme’s own teaching, he is one of the lowly “losers” who will be “shrinking in shame” when the Lord returns. I always find it interesting that followers of Thieme will dismiss all other Christians as lowly “losers” whose lives are “wasted,” but then quote those very same Christians when it suits their purpose.

And if Thieme wished to emphasize the efficacy of Christ’s spiritual sacrifice, then why did he start teaching the heresy that all sins are not forgiven at salvation?

Liberty

To brainout and all Thiemites:

Among all the other evidence, if spiritual death was the only requirement, then why didn't Jesus just die spiritually and resurrect as the Angel of the Lord? (Some will dispute that the Angel of Jehovah was actually Jesus, however, it would not have been impossible for Jesus to have come as an angel instead of becoming man other than the biblical fact that Jesus did become man.) The pointed question remains.


Truthtesty

To brainout and all Thiemites:


And which angel [u:1c086eb797]did die spiritually only[/u:1c086eb797], wants to confuse you, wants you to worship him, and was overcome by the Blood of Jesus?


Truthtesty

A Berachah Church MySpace group:-

[groups.myspace.com]


I have just been reading through some of the forum topics/posts.

There seems to be a group member [i:78e8a87a29]Smitten Kitten[/i:78e8a87a29] (posting in the "When someone recommends a christian book" forum) who is still thinking for herself in regards to checking with scripture with what the pastor teaches. (One of the Thieme system's effects is to get you to trust the pastor, and that you should not be checking for yourself what they teach).

Also, she seems to be having some concerns re the elitist/hero images found in the church.

[i:78e8a87a29]Audrey [/i:78e8a87a29]seems to be getting a little ruffled at [i:78e8a87a29]Smitten Kitten[/i:78e8a87a29]'s comments, and Audrey is asking her why Smitten Kitten is here as a group member.

To the Forum:

Audry

Quote

"Well [b:15a2e6fab9][u:15a2e6fab9]it is not our job as believers to decide [/u:15a2e6fab9]whether something our pastor teaches is or isn't Scripture[/b:15a2e6fab9]... that's what the gift of pastor-teacher is for.

No. That's what the Holy Spirit is for. This clearly shows the foolish, incompetent, and in reality physically dangerous mindset of a thiemite.

Audry

Quote

"it is not our job as believers to decide "

Unbelievable! Thiemites' critical faculties are defunct and dysfunctional!

Summarizing Dr. Chafer Vol VI pg. 221 The Holy Spirit is the Master teacher of all teachers. Even the unregenerate cannot receive the Gospel unless the Spirit reveals it to them John 16:7-11, Truth cannot come to the believer unless the Holy Spirit reveals it with personal illumination.

So even if Thieme has a teaching gift, the Truth is wrought and brought by the Holy Spirit, not Thieme.

Christians should "Test all things; hold fast that which is good" I Thessalonians 5:21.

Not just study the the Word, but another command is "pray without ceasing".

Is it not better to pray at times than study? Perhaps praying about studying?

Notice Audry says

Quote

This is an R.B. Thieme group, and most of the people I know personally in it are under the authority of the Colonel and/or Bobby's teachings. [b:15a2e6fab9]Several of your comments very clearly disagree with those teachings[/b:15a2e6fab9], hence my question- why are you here?

Audry is saying submit to Thieme's authority, don't think, don't decide, and submit to exactly what Thieme teaches or leave!

Audry [u:15a2e6fab9][b:15a2e6fab9]did not say[/b:15a2e6fab9][/u:15a2e6fab9] "this is a christian group seeking all Biblical Truth, having confidence in and relying on the illumination of the Holy Spirit". Audry is confusing faith in a particular teacher over faith in Biblical Truth.

Smitten Kitten is correct to say Thieme should not elevate his gift (if he has one) above the congregation (God's heritage or property). However, she doesn't understand the biblical precedence for a diversity of teachers.

Per Dr. Wall's dissertation referring to Thieme

Quote

Second, he confuses faith in biblical truth with a faith in a particular teacher (i.e. one's right pastor). [b:15a2e6fab9]At no time does Scripture exhort the believer to single out one particular teacher as his final doctrinal authority. On the contrary, there is precedence for diversity of teachers.[/b:15a2e6fab9] At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ. Thieme's right pastor doctrine could very well be called the "Diotrophes doctrine." Third, he gives a false impression as to the believer's personal responsibility relative to testing the reliability of teachers and relative to his own personal study. For Thieme, once one joins a church fellowship, he is to unquestioningly respond to the pastor's authoritative teaching and rely on this pastor to do his study for him. [b:15a2e6fab9]This contradicts the biblical example of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) and the clear exhortations to test the doctrine of teachers (I Cor. 12:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3; Gal. 1: 6-1 0). [/b:15a2e6fab9]It also contradicts the intent of the gift of pastor-teacher. According to Ephesians 4, it along with the gift of evangelist and the temporary gifts of apostle and prophet were primarily given to the church to prepare or equip the saints to minister and edify the body of Christ. [b:15a2e6fab9]It would seem strange indeed to think of one's being equipped to minister as a self-sustaining, contributing unit in the body of Christ, and yet unable to be selfsustaining in his own personal study of Scripture[/b:15a2e6fab9].

Dr. Chafer Vol II pg. 108

Quote

"[b:15a2e6fab9]All teachers are to be judged by their attitude toward the doctrine of the blood redemption of Christ[/b:15a2e6fab9], [u:15a2e6fab9]rather than by their winsome personalities, their education, or their sincerity[/u:15a2e6fab9].
Since the blood redemption of the cross is the central truth and value of the true faith, it being the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23–24), [b:15a2e6fab9]any counterfeit system of doctrine which would omit this essential[/b:15a2e6fab9], must force some secondary truth into the place of prominence.

Dr. Chafer Vol II pg. 104

Quote

It is evident that this partial concession of the world to the testimony of God has opened the way for [b:15a2e6fab9]counterfeit systems of truth[/b:15a2e6fab9], which, according to prophecy, are the last and most-to-be-dreaded methods in the satanic warfare. [b:15a2e6fab9]In this connection it must be conceded that Satan has really granted nothing from his own position, [i:15a2e6fab9][u:15a2e6fab9]even though he be forced to acknowledge every principle of truth save that upon which salvation depends.[/u:15a2e6fab9][/i:15a2e6fab9][/b:15a2e6fab9] [b:15a2e6fab9]Rather [u:15a2e6fab9]is he advantaged by such a concession;[/u:15a2e6fab9] for the value and delusion of a counterfeit are increased by the nearness of its likeness to the real.[/b:15a2e6fab9] By advocating much truth, in the form of a counterfeit system of truth, Satan can satisfy all the external religious cravings of the world, and yet accomplish his own end by withholding that on which man’s only hope depends.

Satan's counterfeiter can teach 99.9 % correct doctrine, but must counterfeit the doctrine of the Blood of Jesus.

And again which angel wants to lord over his arrogant "spiritual death only"?



Truthtesty