Quote
SynergyCon
Truthtesty:
Lets make it really really simple:
Answer the following two questions with either a YES or a NO
1. Did Thieme teach that believing Jesus Christ is the son of God, and by accepting Him as your personal savior, and confessing and believing this in your heart that one is saved?
2. Are the people who attend Berachah Church believers?
Remember YES, or NO only
Thanks
Quote
kcjonesQuote
SynergyCon
Truthtesty:
Lets make it really really simple:
Answer the following two questions with either a YES or a NO
1. Did Thieme teach that believing Jesus Christ is the son of God, and by accepting Him as your personal savior, and confessing and believing this in your heart that one is saved?
2. Are the people who attend Berachah Church believers?
Remember YES, or NO only
Thanks
1.Yes, he did/past tense before 'Rebound'. Now it's NO - He did not die for your Post Salvation Sins - Not so good limiting the ultimate gift.
It isn't about that, KC. If you are going to discuss the doctrines of any church or teacher or anything, whether you agree or not, you should at least know what those doctrines are.Quote
kcjones
Well just color me a confused 'Loser Believer' out picking berries for you ultra super gracers... :roll:
No sir, [u:e0b20d172b]thank you[/u:e0b20d172b]. And amen to what you said that I quoted. You certainly presented it better than I did.Quote
SynergyCon
I don’t think you guys realize how simple minded you appear on your witch-hunt for Thieme.
[...]
If Thieme is who you guys say he is then God will take care of it. God doesn’t need you guys to do His persecuting for him.
[...]
Until then be careful in this war, and may God bless all of you with knowledge of His word, and the power to discern what is good and what is evil.
Thanks
Quote
Thieme always taught that the eternal/judicial penalty for sin was paid for at the cross, but that personal sin in the life was a barrier to spiritual living.
Quote
I downloaded Dr. Wall’s book about Thieme and had it printed at Kinko’s FIVE years ago. It has been five years since I read it. From what I remember he like myself, Galiban, and others question Thieme’s theology and pastoral practices, [u:5c25ee3c20]but nowhere in his book do I remember seeing the word “[b:5c25ee3c20]cult[/b:5c25ee3c20]” [/u:5c25ee3c20]
Quote
Finally, his differentiation between the "message" and the "man" is not completely a biblical view. It is true that honoring the teacher is not appropriate. However, God desires that the vessel he uses to communicate his message be one that does not detract from the message. The argument that the life of the teacher is irrelevant is one also used by some [b:5c25ee3c20]cult[/b:5c25ee3c20] leaders to excuse their life styles. For example, the leaders of the Children of God teach that their people are to ignore their blatant immorality and submit to their authoritative teaching because they are God's appointed authoritative teachers.
Quote
Seventh, an extensive emphasis on the doctrine of right pastor can produce a fear of leaving a local church. If Bible doctrine is defined in terms of that which one's pastor-teacher communicates, then leaving his authority, in the minds of many, is tantamount to leaving God or moving into reversionism. [u:5c25ee3c20]This is similar to the emotional slavery developed by the authoritative leaders of some of the newer, false [b:5c25ee3c20]cults[/u:5c25ee3c20][/b:5c25ee3c20].
Quote
The big differences between Thieme's teachings and others is two-fold: 1) Thieme gave it a new term, "rebound", which may be confusing (Wall covers this in his thesis) and 2) Thieme taught that only confession was needed to "be" spiritual whereas other theologians teach about a yielded walk in life, etc. The second of these is an important theological difference, [u:4d0512e145]but it doesn't make "Rebound" itself some evil teaching[/u:4d0512e145].
Quote
In other words, one can be walking in a fellowship relationship and have sin in his life, but he is promised that Christ's blood will continually cleanse him. That fellowship relationship is characterized by honesty with 10 Thieme, Spirituality, p. 33. 11 See Acts 2:42; 11 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 2:9; Philippians 1:5; 2:1; 3:10. Also see Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, s.v. "koinonia, " pp. 439, 40. 87 God or confession of sins to God, but John's concept of fellowship is not one of a hop-scotch, in-and out, absolute spiritual status. For John, the issue is one of an honest walk versus a dishonest, rebellious non-acceptance of the reality of sin in our lives. Temporal fellowship is broken, not by an act of sin, but by a rebellious rationalization of the sin which the Holy Spirit is pointing out to the believer through the Word of God. This means that fellowship is more than the absence of unconfessed sins. It is a positive, personal, responsive relationship with God, openly lived in the light of His revelation-the Scriptures. At times in his books Thieme moves somewhat close to a relational definition of fellowship.12 He would be wise to expand this aspect of his teaching, for teaching the doctrine of fellowship as a technique to enter an absolute state can produce in some a "mechanical spirituality" and can become a form of "legalism" or "dead orthodoxy."13
The second weakness of Thieme's teaching on the subject of fellowship involves a failure to guard his definition of confession against practical abuse. The root meaning of homologeo is "to speak the same thing," and normal translations of it include "acknowledge," “confess,” “agree," “admit," and "declare.”14 Thieme does recognize that the word can be translated "acknowledge." However, he also says that it means "to name" or "to cite," and
these last two translations fall short of the basic meaning of the term. Not only does Thieme fail to translate properly homologeo consistently, but he fails to emphasize the normal implications of agreeing with God about specific sins in one's life. Normally, if one truly admits to God that what he has done is sin, he is sorry that he has sinned against his Father, and he desires to see a change in his own life (Lk. 15:21). It is true that forgiveness is based on the work of Christ, and that all that is needed to appropriate Christ's provision for cleansing is to confess (or agree with God about) one's sins. It is also true that this does not require sorrow for sins or promises to do better; but neither does it rule out the normal
expressions of one who truly takes God's attitude toward sin in his life. Unless the full ramifications of true agreement about (or acknowledgement of) sins are taught, there can be practical abuses of the doctrine of confession. Without these clarifications the teaching of confession and forgiveness can possible produce in the carnal mind a "license mentality."15 [b:4d0512e145]In some cases it can even result in a rationalization of the continuing existence of sin 16 and the repression of guilt, and this can produce emotional problems and even schizophrenia. The author has personally counseled people with such problems stemming from their abuse of Thieme's teaching on confession and fellowship[/b:4d0512e145].12 He seems to contradict himself at this point; for, after describing fellowship in absolute terms, he equates fellowship with the relative stages of maturity.