Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty:
You shouldn't be surprised. You think I am going about this all wrong? Seriously radaph, then prove what I am saying is wrong. It's not. Bring the facts. Bring your best logic.
Just because it's the truth (though I am not implying that everything you are saying is true) doesn't mean that saying it is a good idea. For example, if you are witnessing to an unbeliever. And you start out by telling them "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST!!" That is a true statement, but not very tactful, and not a good approach if you really want to win this person for Christ.
If you malign a person, you may in fact be speaking the truth, but maligning is still sinful.
Quote
I never saw where you said "I respect you as a person". Would you point that out?
I really don't have time for that. I thought I had said it before. If I didn't, well then I've said it now.
Quote
Doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary:
Quote:
We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).
I am not denying that Jesus Christ had to die physically for God's plan of salvation to be completed. I am just saying that if we are truly going to pick it apart and determine what the moment was that salvation was accomplished, I think it was when Jesus said "It is finished." Or more specifically, it was in progress when He said "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" And both of those things happened before He physically died. To make His literal blood the object of worship, is in my opinion, idolatry. You have only proven that RBT-Jr. taught contrary to what DTS teaches. Who ever said DTS is always right? I do believe in the power of the blood. But what I mean when I say those words is not a literal thing. Just like, I'll sing the old hymn "power in the blood" without missing a note. But I don't mean it literally. Just like the bible says that the wine taken in communion is somehow transubstantiated into Christ's real blood. But the overwhelming majority of protestant churches teach that this is symbolic as well, and not literal. But what did Jesus literally say? "This is my blood." But the disciples got the point he was making, and benefitted from the experience without turning it into an idolatrous ritual.
Quote
Thieme denies the efficacy of literal Shed Blood of Christ, Chafer does not.
You don't need to keep making this point. I am not arguing with this fact. And for the record, in the doctrinal statement you quoted, the word "literal" is not found. So you are assuming something that is not really stated.
Quote
You brought me in on this PUBLIC FORUM when you said Thieme wasn't evil. He is. I said I take issue with some of your statements which by the way you made public to everyone on this forum. If you just wanted to talk to Mile2 then why didn't you PM him? You shouldn't be surprised. Other than making excuses for Thieme are thier any errors of Thieme's that you would like to point out? For correcting the Word?
I have no problem with everyone reading my posts, and even commenting on them. You are the only one here with a bad attitude that I've seen so far. To keep this in PM's would exclude all the many mature, intelligent forum members who's opinions I actually do care about. But keep in mind thought this forum is open to you, just because I post here doesn't mean I am specifically addressing you. So try not to take my statements so personally, unless (like this one) it is addressed to you, specifically.
Quote
radaph quote "and I don't respect your attitude, because I think there is no justification for it"
Is that what you told Thieme about his disrespectful attitude? When Thieme called people "dummies" from the pulpit? when Thieme called black people "melanoderms" from the pulpit? When Thieme invalidated people's personal study of the Word of God from the pulpit? etc... I respect what is respect worthy, so far you and Thieme don't fit the bill. For Thieme to misrepresent the gospel for years on end is evil. For Thieme to misrepresent the truth that he had the support of Bauer Ardnt Gingrich and Dr. Walvoord, FOR YEARS and yet? Thieme misrepresented thier words as support for his "junk theology". If Thieme would misrepresent the words of MEN for his "junk theology" then what makes you think Thieme would not misrepresent the Word of GOD to support his "junk theology"?
I've never told Thieme anything other than "hello." He is pretty unaccessable to most of his congregation. Which I certainly disagree with, but again, publically maligning him for that is not the correct response, in my opinion. Thieme does not misrepresent the gospel. I have heard countless versions of the gospel, and Thieme is in agreement with every other I've ever heard, with one exception, his is more clearly presented, which is a very good thing, and not clouded by metaphors and lofty speaking which often overcomplicates what God intended be a very simple message. Think about it, saving-faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ is the very first baby-step you will take in your spiritual life as a newborn believer. At that point, you probably know very little to nothing about the plan of God for you, or any deep theological principles or doctrines. Many are small children when they accept Jesus Christ. And if God truly wants everyone to be saved (which scripture clearly states that He does), wouldn't that include people with learning disabilities, mental retardation, etc.. Therefore, wouldn't a gracious God make the salvation message as clear and simple as possible? He would, and He did. But most pastors overcomplicate the heck out of it, by using poetic phrases like "you must ask Jesus into your heart" or "invite Him to be lord of your life" or "he is knocking, you must just open the door." or they use biblical words like "repent" but they don't explain them. How do you invite someone into your heart? That sounds lovely, but most people have no clue what it means. And since you are wanting them do be saved, shouldn't you make it easier for them by making the message clear and simple. Thieme did this. He put away the frivalities, and cut the message down to five very simple words "faith alone, in Christ alone." Very simple, yet very profound, which is not surprising since it straight out of the bible. He cut to the chase, and many thousands I'm sure have eternal life as a result. Don't cheapen that just because you have a personal vedetta.
Quote
Emotional problems and schizophrenia? It's true I have seen it. Dr. Wall who has a doctorate degree from Dallas Theological Seminary withnessed it. Quit trying to act like thier is not a huge problem with that church when thier is a HUGE PROBLEM.
So you and dr. Wall have both seen it? So 2 people, out of how many thousands? I am not denying that there may be people who attend Berachah who suffer from these psychosis (though in my 30 years, I've never seen it), but no rational person could blame the Col. for this. This is so ridiculous that I am done discussing this point with you. And don't quote Wall's comments about it either. If he believes this rubbish, then he is ridiculous too.
Quote
No. Exactly not. What part of the following do you not understand? 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
Are you now, or have you ever been a church elder at Berachah church? Did you take your concern to an elder? Was any Berachah church elder ever involved in this process that you've started?
Quote
It doesn't say in private. It says REBUKE BEFORE ALL. That's public. Thieme liked to keep the truth from getting out like all cult leaders by keeping falsehoods "private".
Read my above statement.
Quote
You need to learn to check sources and facts. You trusted Thieme before your checked out Thieme's sources. That's your fault. Thieme is in trouble because of Thieme. That is the reason Thieme is in trouble, BECAUSE THIEME MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS HIMSELF. I JUST EXPOSE THE FACTS. I DIDN'T MAKE THIEME MISREPRESENT THE TRUTH. THIEME DID THAT ALL ON HIS OWN.
I trusted Thieme as a child, because my parents trusted him. Had you been in my sitation, you would've done the same, that is assuming you had a good relationship with your parents, and respected them. Once I became aware that I had been misled, I took responsibility for my own mistakes, confessed them to God, and moved on. Never once did I malign anyone for my unfortunate circumstances. You are doing a heck of a lot more than just "exposing the facts." According to you Dr. Wall has already exposed the facts, and you apparently think he did an exceptional job of this. So if it's been done, why are you still doing it? From little exerts that you've posted from Dr. Wall, he seems to have somewhat of an axe to grind as well, but even he doesn't resort to tasteless insults, and maligning slander as you have. He kept it professional (though I admit I have only read exerts). You would do well, to follow his example. Or better yet, instead of just parroting him, maybe you should just promote his book instead. Why repeat what's already been said?
Quote
I am highly skeptical of your so-called "conversion". You are highly critical here, but what have you to be critical of Thieme about? The 1st part in dealing with a problem is admitting there is a problem.
Truthtesty
Well, I didn't convert for your benefit, so quite frankly I don't give a rat's buttock what you think of my "so-called" conversion. I have already explained in great detail what I take issue with about Thieme's ministry. If you didn't read it, that is your problem. Go back 4 or 5 pages, and you'll see it. What you won't see is me attacking a fellow brother in Christ, whom Jesus Christ himself commanded me to "love as myself." Criticism does not have to exclude love. But your's seems to. What do you want to happen? What would make you happy? Do you honestly care that RBT would see his errors, and get right with God about the issues you keep mentioning. Do you have any concern at all for his spiritual well-being? If you do, you hide it well.
I have no problem with the fact that you feel you were misled for a time, and that you want to keep others from being misled. I just think your methods are not loving, and certainly not biblical. You can't justify hate. Jesus Christ died for His enemies. We should have grace for our enemies, let alone misguided brothers in Christ (who according to scripture are not enemies at all). Surely you won't argue that scriptural fact.