<sup>Truthtesty 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?

radaph quote 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.</sup>

Truthtesty: I am not enthused about your posts. My attitude is none of your business. And I don't give a "rat's buttock" what you think of my attitude. Stick to the facts.

radaph quote: To keep this in PM's would exclude all the many mature, intelligent forum members who's opinions I actually do care about.

Truthtesty: Not necessarily. You could PM all of them with a copy of the same PM. Thus completely going around me. And you insult my intelligence? That is characteristic of a thiemite. Thieme called people "dummies" in church. You can't even comprise a few sentences without being logically competent?

<sup>radaph qoute (May 14, 2008 03:03PM) Why does that not surprise me? Seriously Truth, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I respect you as a person, and I understand on a very small level where you are coming from. But I think you are going about this all wrong, and I don't respect your attitude, because I think there is no justification for it. That is why I have not addressed you in any of my posts. And the only reason I am now is because I wish to defend myself, since you've taken it upon yourself to "correct" me.


Truthtesty: You really are not coming across as credible. The casual observer can see the hypocrisy in your statements.

1st you say:

radaph quote (May 14, 2008 03:03PM) Why does that not surprise me? Seriously Truth, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I respect you as a person, and I understand on a very small level where you are coming from.

Truthtesty: Then just 1 brief sentence away is this statement:

radaph quote (May 14, 2008 03:03PM) That is why I have not addressed you in any of my posts.

Truthtesty: Hello?

Then I questioned you about it, because you didn't say that before, becuase according to your own witness testimony there was no previous post addressed to me BEFORE the current one.:

Truthtesty(May 15, 2008 06:36AM): I never saw where you said "I respect you as a person". Would you point that out?

radaph quote (May 15, 2008 05:20PM): 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.

Truthtesty: You thought you said it before? When not more than 1 sentence away you said"

radaph quote:(May 14, 2008 03:03PM) That is why I have not addressed you in any of my posts.

Truthtesty: Hello? This is not competent. You call into question my testimony and Dr. Wall's? You say that my witness and Dr. Wall's witness is rubbish and ridiculous? What are you smoking? Someone would have to insult thier own intelligence to take your witness seriously.</sup>


Truthtesty: And you try insult my intelligence? Pathetic. You say I have a "bad attitude"? Yet you do not consider running around insulting people's intelligence a "bad attitude"? Hows that? Is that because you are so habituated to Thieme's insulting your intelligence that you now have "no conscience" or a "seared conscience" about insulting other people's intelligence?

Now also you try to insult my maturity. I would say that maturity after childhood is much a due about NOT COPYING. For thiemites a sign of maturity is not COPYING A CULT LEADERS BEHAVIOUR, FOR EX: RUNNING AROUND INSULTING PEOPLE'S INTELLIGENCE. Try not to copy Thieme's behaviour.

radaph quote: 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.

Truthtesty: But keep in mind that also though this forum is open to you, that if you are allowed to misrepresent the facts about Thieme on this PUBLIC forum, then I will correct your misrepresentaion, whether you address the post to me or not. Also keep in mind that it becomes personal when you attack someone's maturity or intelligence. This forum is a cult forum. People are allowed to get angry and upset. Unlike Thieme's cult environment where people are not allowed to have emotions. Also, the lack of emotions is not the sign of maturity, as Thieme invalidated people's emotions. The lack of emotions is dysfunction. Thieme is a clear example of emotional dysfunction.

Here's another thing, Thieme and thiemites like to present this false "10 foot wide and bullet-proof" image. I don't know if you have ever been tortured, but when someone takes a knife and starts slicing off skin and muscle you will cry like a baby and yes you will have EMOTIONS. Yes even Thieme would have EMOTIONS like a baby under those circumstances. I KNOW because I was in that situation. Anyone would cry. "10 foot wide and bullet-proof"? What a joke!

I'd like the forum to note that radaph carefully avoided my question "Other than making excuses for Thieme are thier any errors of Thieme's that you would like to point out? For correcting the Word" And instead of answering the question chose to try to insult my intelligence and maturity. That is contempt for this whole forum.

Isn't it your "motive" radaph, to make a "pretentious recovery" here, all the while making endless excuses for Thieme's errors, all the while you are contemptous of this forums very existence?

Too bad. Thieme didn't see this one coming did he? Thieme thought he had the technological edge, with tape recording. And at the time in the 60's, 70's, 80's, part of the 90's Thieme did have a technological edge. But not anymore, not with the internet, not anymore. Thieme's cult and 1 sided lop sided view of the world is at an end.

Don't take it personal.


Truthtesty

PastorThiemeisGreat2me:

Religious rants that include name calling and flaming will not be edited next time, it just won't be approved and deleted.

And if you cannot stay within the rules you will be banned.

Truthtesty: Thieme denies the efficacy of literal Shed Blood of Christ, Chafer does not.

radaph: 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.

Truthtesty: You are trying to create doubt where none exists. I am not assuming anything about Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's belief in the literal Shed Blood of Christ. Dr. Chafer wrote the original 1924 doctrinal statement. Clearly from Dr. Chafer's Systematic Theology it is very clear that Chafer meant the literal Blood when referencing the Blood of Christ.

I have already shown many times on this forum that when Dr. Chafer references the Blood of Christ that Chafer is referring to the literal efficacious Blood. Would you like to contest this issue further? Or would you like to show where Thieme made errors?

You are testing what I say very carefully. I have no problems with that. But? Where have you show a specific error of Thieme's? Where are Thieme's errors?

Once again further evidence that your intention is to attack this forum in your "pretentious recovery".


Truthtesty

psss: The Spiritual Death of Christ is NOT "Mystical" if you have enough correct Bible Doctrine in your soul to understand it as God the Holy Spirit reveals it to you. I understand it because the Holy Spirit has given me the understanding of it through categorical and exegetical truths from the word

Truthtesty: God told you that? Andrea Yates really believed God was talking to her. Or? did Thieme tell you that? I know Thieme said that. Thieme's ICE teaching is corrupt. The spiritual aspect of Jesus' total death it is quite a mystery as the Blood is a mystery. You do not know the all the intricate details of what Jesus' efficacious spiritual aspect of death was. Just as no one knows all the intricate details of the literal efficacious Divine Blood of Jesus. No one has the total view of God. You at best have a "christian human view" of limitedly revealed scripture. But it appears you have copied Thieme's view. Are you sure God told you that Jesus' Blood was not efficacious? Or was that Thieme? Did you even ask God about the Blood of Jesus? Or did you just invalidate the Blood of God in the face of God, because Thieme told you to? Are you sure?

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. VII pg. 80
3. The Efficacious Sufferings, Death, and Burial of the Son of God. Considering these three events separately:
a. HIS SUFFERINGS. The evidence presented in John 19:28 intimates that the actual bearing of the judgments of sin fell upon Christ in the hours of His suffering which terminated in death. It was just before He said “It is finished” that John declares of Him, “Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” What was actually experienced by Christ in those six hours upon the cross cannot be known in this world by any man; yet the value of it is received by those who believe.

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. III pg. 53
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer: The Son cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Ps. 22:1; Matt. 27:46), yet it is affirmed that it was the very God to whom He cried that was, at that precise moment, “in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). To finite minds all this is paradoxical, yet it serves to emphasize anew the deeper truth that, though there are three Persons in the Godhead, there is but one essence.

Your mind is finite. No one knows the intricate details of the spiritual aspect of Jesus' total death, nor does anyone know of the intricate details of how the simultaneous efficacious Bloodshedding related to the spiritual aspect of Jesus' total death.



Truthtesty

Truthtesty: Prove it. Prove Jesus did not die by bleeding to death. You can't. In any case Jesus still Shed Blood. And if you believe in the Virgin Birth, then it was the Blood of God. The scientists in the documentary "crucifixtion" from the History Channel International said Jesus Shed his blood through a hole in his heart into the pericardial sac. Dr. Chafer also mentions a theory very close to this, in Systematic Theology. Thus the term "Bleeding heart".

PastorThiemeIsGreat2Me: The Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man was on the cross for 6 hours but suffered spiritual death from 12:00 noon to 3 pm when the sins of the world were poured out on him (Mk 15:33-34 and 1Peter 2:24). As the Lord Jesus Christ paid the penalty for every sin, he revealed his spiritual death to the world by screaming "MY God MY God why have you forsaken me? (Matt 27:46 Mk 15:34 Ps 22:1). He was forsaken because He the Father made him Christ who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf.( 2Cor 5:21).

pss/Thieme: After the judgement of sin was complete Jesus Christ shouted (TETELESTAI) "IT IS fINISHED" in the perfect tense = finished in the past with the results that it goes on forever. The work for salvation (John19:30)

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Vol I pg 378
"With prophetic vision He said, even before His death, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4), and when He reached the moment of death He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30)"

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Vol. III pg 87
"...the finished work of Christ. This term is derived from the words of Christ on the cross, namely, “It is finished” (John 19:30). There was no reference on Christ’s part by these words to the truth that His own life, service, or sufferings were coming to an end. It is rather that a specific undertaking committed to Him by His Father, which could not have begun until He was on the cross, was consummated. It is true that the Father had given Him a work to do in His three and a half years of service. To this reference is made in the words, “Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34); “But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me” (John 5:36). In contradistinction to this, a specific work was committed to the Savior which began with His cross sufferings and ended with His death. It is to this that His words “It is finished” refer. Of this same saving work of the cross the Savior in His priestly prayer spoke when He said, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4). That He could speak thus of a work which had not at that time even begun is explained by the fact that the whole of the Upper Room Discourse, including the priestly prayer, was dated by Christ in relation to the cross, the resurrection, the ascension, and the advent of the Spirit as though these momentous events were accomplished. What was wrought on the cross and finished when He died will be discovered only through an investigation into that which was included in His redemption, His reconciliation, and His propitiation."

Truthtesty: So therefore "it is finished" does not refer to spiritual death only.

pss/Thieme: He did not bleed to death for if that were the case it would mean that the Jews and/or the Romans killed him and caused his death or took his life.

Truthtesty: Jesus let himself be killed. Still you have no proof that Jesus did not bleed out into the pericardial sac, at the exact moment His Spirit left or that Jesus did not sense was nearing death.

Lewis Sperry Chafer Christology Vol. 7, Page 80 3. The Efficacious Sufferings, Death, and Burial of the Son of God. Considering these three events separately:
a. HIS SUFFERINGS. The evidence presented in John 19:28 intimates that the actual bearing of the judgments of sin fell upon Christ in the hours of His suffering which terminated in death. It was just before He said “It is finished” that John declares of Him, “Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” What was actually experienced by Christ in those six hours upon the cross cannot be known in this world by any man; yet the value of it is received by those who believe.
b. HIS DEATH. It was required of any efficacious sacrifice that it should be delivered unto death and the shedding of blood. The death of Christ is the antitype of every typical sacrifice and determined the nature of that particular type. Typical sacrificial deaths through bloodshedding were such as God required because of the truth that Christ would thus be sacrificed. The range of Biblical testimony respecting Christ’s death may be examined in seven divisions, namely: (1) types, (2) prophecies, (3) historical declarations of the Synoptic Gospels, (4) declarations of the Apostle John in his Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation, (5) declarations of the Apostle Paul, (6) of the Apostle Peter, and (7) of the Letter to the Hebrews.
If it be inquired, as constantly it is, Who put Christ to death? it may be pointed out that He was offered by the Father (Ps. 22:15; John 3:16; Rom. 3:25), of His own free will (John 10:17; Heb. 7:27; 9:14; 10:12), by the Spirit (Heb. 9:14), and by men—Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel (Acts 2:23; 4:27). To this may be added that part in His death which was contributed by Satan (cf. Gen. 3:15). The death of Christ achieved a vast array of objectives. At least fourteen of these are indicated in this work under Soteriology (Vol. III).
c. HIS BURIAL. As the scapegoat type anticipated, Christ carried away the burden of sin into oblivion. He went into the grave a sin-bearer and He came out the Lord of glory.

pss/Thieme: But Christ stated in (John 10:17-18), I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative...

Truthtesty: That is straight from Thieme's propaganda pamphlet. "Initiative" is not used. Initiative is a commonly used military term. Thieme frequently made military references ie "taking the initiative" "taking the objective". Jesus was following the Will of the Father.

John 10:18 (KJV) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. Emautou

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Vol. 3, Page 141
It is clearly taught in the New Testament that Christ’s death was wholly voluntary. The words of Christ are a final refutation of the Marturial theory: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day” (Matt. 16:21); “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10:18). It is also recorded that when He died He, as the Sovereign of life, dismissed His own spirit: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost” (Luke 23:46).

pss/Thieme: Christ released his soul and spirit in physical death but not through bleeding to death or shedding his physical blood. (Jn19:30-37, to understand this passage fully you have to have some isagogics and understanding of Hebrew customs, something Pastors should be teaching; Matt27:50; Mk15:37; Lk 23:46; Ps31:5; Zech 12:10). Then his soul departed for Hades(Ps16:10; Lk23:43; Acts2:27; Eph 4:9) His Human Spirit went into the presence of the Father (Lk 23:46 Ps 31:5) and his Body went into the grave (Lk 23:53).

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 7, Page 203 INTERPRETATION
The doctrine of interpretation contemplates the science of discovering the exact meaning of the Spirit Author as this is set forth in a given Scripture passage. Such a science may be described theologically as hermeneutics. To fathom this doctrine it is necessary to know and follow the recognized rules of Scripture interpretation...

Truthtesty: Notice Thieme makes no mention of his drastic violent twist of the scriptures away from his professor Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. The "problem" as Thieme describes it is that it a pastoral problem of not learning enough isagogics or learning enough about Hebrew customs. How far out in left field is someone left to use thier discriminatory faculties? Thieme drives way out into the desert and says "accept what I say or get out of the car". Although, Thieme does quote Dr. Chafer many times in other places throughout his propaganda pamphlets, never once mentioning that Dr. Chafer completely and totally disagreed with Thieme on the subject of the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood. Thieme never once mentioned that Dr. Chafer would consider Thieme's teaching on this satanic. This leaves people in a very bad way.

pss: His Spiritual death does not deminish the importance of the physical death of Christ, 1Cor 15:14-17.

Truthtesty: That's not what Thieme taught back in the 1970s. Thieme taught that Jesus physically died for himself and not us. Easily refuteable. Thieme later changed it after a huge public uproar. But a pathetic false preaching at the time. Thieme should have been ashamed especially having a Masters degree.

One cannot look upon what Thieme preached on the Blood of Jesus, without realizing one thing is consistent about Thieme from 1969 onward regardless of how or what Thieme said he "learned more", Thieme attacked the Blood of Jesus. ATTACKING THE BLOOD OF JESUS IS THE ONE THING THAT THIEME HAS NOT CHANGED THROUGHOUT THE YEARS SINCE 1969. Thieme attacked the Blood of Jesus because of Catholics. Catholic democrats and liberal "bleeding hearts". Ultra-neoconservative Thieme attacked the beliefs of Catholics and threw the Blood of Jesus under the bus along with throwing Dr. Chafer and other Protestants under the bus. And Thieme did it with extreme predjudice, a "seared conscience". Society was out of control from all the war protests. Thieme's friend Senator Barry Goldwater was recently defeated by "bleeding heart" liberal Democrats. Thieme had to do something. What better way to politically attack "bleeding heart" liberals (other than direct attacks from the pulpit which Thieme did very often) than to attack and change thier faith in the literal efficacious Blood and thus convert them into neoconservatives? One cannot look upon what Thieme preached without realizing that Thieme misrepresented the Words of Walvoord and Ardnt and Ginrich. WITH EXTREME PREDJUDICE! WITH NAMECALLING PEOPLE "DUMMIES!" And leaving people in a desert nowhere no information land except Thieme's information.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Vol. 1, Page 117
V. CONSIDERATION OF ALL SCRIPTURE BEARING ON ANY GIVEN THEME
A right interpretation will also depend very largely on an induction being made of all that the Bible presents on a given subject. The conclusion must be no less than the consensus of that full testimony.

Thieme's false gospel is not harmonius with all scripture. You (and Thieme which you are copying) still have not proven that Jesus did not let His Blood drain out into the pericardial sac resulting in the physical aspect of death.

Intresting pss, I clearly distinguish what is Dr. Chafer's words and my words, Yet? You do not distinguish what is Thieme's words and your own. Have you no words of your own? Has Thieme ever made an error that you have noticed? Can you tell me a few things you just don't like about Thieme?


Truthtesty

psss Also concerning personal study, that is a limited function and we all need a Pastor because they should have acquired tools to help our understanding of God's word like:
Example: The words translated "IF" in the KJV or other English translations have 4 different Greek meanings, but all are translated using the one word "IF". Therefore unless you know which one is being used you can not end up with an accurate translation or meaning or understanding or application. Well your chances are 25%.So with a thorough evaluation of scriptures with the help of a qualified Pastor whom you trust we all can come to a unity of the Faith and doctrine in which God intended.

Truthtesty: There is nothing to say that a teacher will not mislead, even though they have acquired some use of the Greek and Hebrew. Christians compare thier personal study with a teacher's study or a friend's study. The personal study is not shutdown. It is not limited. Christians are not to submit thier study to a teacher's study. That is not learning. You compare and contrast you study to someone elses study. Thiemites claim they know so much more. They don't, they just believe they do. People certainly didn't need Thieme to falsely teach them that Jesus didn't die physically for them which is heretical. People can make thier own errors, they don't need to submit to Thieme's COLOSSAL errors to be more spiritual. Thieme retarded growth. Any christian can access God anytime and they don't have to have a pastor teacher or know the original languages. The Holy Spirit is the Master Teacher in any situation. No one ever knows it all. Anyhow to Thieme's colossal error of GAP, which required much suffering of christians until a doctor of Theology finally showed up.

Dr. Wall ^{Critique
One's first reaction to this extremely complex analysis of the maturity process is that it is totally absurd, and that Thieme must not be serious -- but apparently he is serious. After making some observations about the difference between human wisdom and divine wisdom and about the significance of the term epignosis, he begins to believe his own detailed description of the soul and spirit and to push it to extremes far beyond any biblical teaching. One striking characteristic of Thieme's in-depth analysis in this area is the almost total absence of sound exegesis. The statement in James 1:21 concerning the implanted word (emphuton logon) is expanded without any exegetical basis to describe four of Thieme's own categories of production. A brief reference to Peter's reminding of believers to remember certain doctrines is supposed to be a sufficient biblical base for the concept of the memory center "valves." Although it is proper to observe the special emphasis that the term epignosis has, Thieme has overstated the distinctions between gnosis and epignosis. Knowledge (gnosis) does not have the highly technical sense employed by Thieme. It is used of the knowledge in the mind of God (Rom.11:33), and it is also used of one of the building blocks in the structuring of Christian character in 2 Peter 1:5 (Here the term seems more in keeping with
Thieme's concept of epignosis.). It is probably best to take the term gnosis to refer to knowledge in general, including at times epignosis; epignosis does, however, seem to have a more specialized use: Christian knowledge which “carries with it a corresponding manner of life.” There are two primary problems with Thieme's concept of the process of growth (the function of GAP). First, it demands a view of the pastor-teacher that is not in keeping with the biblical statements nor with the biblical mentality. This will be discussed further in the next chapter.
Second, the entire process that Thieme propounds can be reduced to one phrase: Be positive toward and believe what is taught. Not only does this concept dangerously produce a blind dependency on a pastor-teacher, but it fails to encompass the clear scriptural pattern for growth. Paul's classic passage on spiritual maturity, Ephesians 4, indicates two aspects of the process that Thieme has overlooked. First, verse 16 teaches that spiritual growth takes place through the contact and interaction of the members of the body of Christ, as every spiritual gift in the body functions and ministers to other gifts. Second, the subject of "speaking the truth in love" in verse 15 is "we." In the context this means the whole body of believers. Not only does the process of spiritual maturity involve all of the members of the body ministering to one another, but the biblical pattern requires application of truth, not only as a result of maturity but as a part of the process of growing itself. Christ taught that a volitional decision to obey God's will would result in discernment (John 7:17). He also taught that the building of our spiritual house and its stability depends upon acting upon the teachings of Christ (Matt. 7:24-27). Also the writer of Hebrews taught that a key element in spiritual maturity is the discernment between good and evil, and he indicated that practical exercise (hexin) was necessary to develop mature discernment. The maturing process is not sitting under a particular, authoritative pastor-teacher every night of the week and responding with positive faith. It is the loving communication of the truths of God's Word by all of the members of the body, expressing the particular illumination that the Holy Spirit gives to each person in accordance with his particular gift. The pastor-teacher and the evangelist (Eph. 4:1 lb) are to equip the saints (all believers) with the tools for personal Bible study and application; the saints, in turn, carry out the work of service for the purpose of building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). Each individual Christian grows as he responds to the truth so communicated to him. That response includes both attitude changes and overt actions. Thieme's GAP approach is totally off-balanced. Not only does it fail to enhance true spiritual growth, it actually can inhibit true growth by giving the believer a false sense of maturity, not unlike the "puffed up" believer in I Corinthians 8: 1.}

Thieme invalidated personal study and propagated dysfunction among Christians.

Cultic.


Truthtesty

psss: That is accomplished NOT by asking but by TRUSTING and or BELIEVING in the Good News ie. the GOSPEL (Romans1:16). Since One can ask for something and not believe or trust one will recieve it (James 1:6 and 4:2) one can ask and not receive salvation. Therefore ruling out the FALSE way of Salvation of "ASKING Christ into one's heart. (Ephesians 2:8-10). Please State what the BIBLE says and do not follow the false way of Salvation. Paul NEVER stated that "Asking" is a way or means of Salvation but in (Acts 16:31) he stated the way, So Please follow the correct way. (John 3:36 and 5:24).

Truthtesty: This is a non-issue. I am not promoting people to ask God into thier heart. If that's what they want to do fine. You shouldn't knock it. It's God's call in anycase. Do you think someone would ask Jesus to come into thier heart if they didn't have faith in Jesus as saviour? They believe it's Jesus' work that's going to save them. If someone wants to have faith in Jesus and saviour But? they also believe they have to stand on thie head while having faith in Jesus as saviour. By once save always saved faith in Jesus as saviour they are saved. It's the faith in Jesus as saviour that saves, NOT the ridiculous whatever belief they may have in addition to faith in Jesus as saviour.
You and Thieme don't have the power to take away people's salvation. It's the politics of fear to suck people into the Thieme temple. Ridiculous waste of time absurdity.


Truthtesty

radaph: ...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?

Professional? the truth is professional something which you are apparently are not intrested in, neither was Thieme. Parroting? I don't parrot anyone and certainly not like you parroted Thieme. Dr. Wall covered many main points. He did not have time to cover all of them. And as he told me he hasn't covered Thieme's latest errors. What's your hurry? Don't you want to discover all the areas where you were misled? Supposedly you had a so-called recent "recovery". Your not at all intrested in seeing the truth of the hows and ways you wre misled? Why don't you do you own study? instead of complaining about what I am doing? I think most people are highly suspicious of your "recovery". I can't blame them. As far as I am concerned, your game is up. Try to think of another way to attack this forum, this one is not working.


Truthtesty

psss: Those who say RBT is a CULT might want to reconsider that position because he is correct in his teachings of SALVATION. So if one does not have the primary and elementary doctrines of salvation correct, How can ANYONE claim they are so knowlegable about more advanced doctrines from God's word. Also if you don't have salvation correct how can you claim spiritual awareness of or have understanding of the Mystery doctrines of Christ (Eph 3:3-9) ie including the Shed Blood Of Christ and what it represents. To me that would be more an insentive to accept other doctrine from that source than not. Therefore the accusation of Cultism toward those who do know and understand the truth, is false, PERIOD.

Truthtesty: As I said before I am not advocating asking. By the way Thieme gleaned much about "asking" from Chafer, as well as much of the mystery and shadow doctrines from Chafer. But Chafer still did not deny the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood. Denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood a Thieme satanic perversion. Thieme is not correct about salvation when denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood. FALSE. CULT. PERIOD.


Truthtesty

<sup>psss: Those who say RBT is a CULT might want to reconsider that position because he is correct in his teachings of SALVATION. So if one does not have the primary and elementary doctrines of salvation correct, How can ANYONE claim they are so knowlegable about more advanced doctrines from God's word. Also if you don't have salvation correct how can you claim spiritual awareness of or have understanding of the Mystery doctrines of Christ (Eph 3:3-9) ie including the Shed Blood Of Christ and what it represents. To me that would be more an insentive to accept other doctrine from that source than not. Therefore the accusation of Cultism toward those who do know and understand the truth, is false, PERIOD.

Truthtesty: As I said before I am not advocating asking. By the way Thieme gleaned much about "asking" from Chafer, as well as much of the mystery and shadow doctrines from Chafer. But Chafer still did not deny the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood. Denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood a Thieme satanic perversion. Thieme is not correct about salvation when denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood. FALSE. CULT. PERIOD.
Truthtesty</sup>

Truthtesty: Once again we see the typical Thieme attempt of an intimidating approach to cult indoctrination, hiding behind so-called superior intelligence. Sit down, shutdup, Thieme is a valedictorian "genius" (of a 7 person class but pay no attention to the man behind that curtain) so don't think for youself because it's useless, we are more "advanced than you are", so accept what Thieme says while submitting to Thieme's sole authority. If you have a question ask it after class, if your question doesn't "tow the line" then you'll be laughed at and escorted out by special forces goons or the Houston Police department.

pss quote color= "To me that would be more an insentive to accept other doctrine from that source than not."

Truthtesty: Oh? You need to give insentives to accept what is said from a source? How about free DVR? How telling. How telltale. According to you people cannot think for themselves? They need to be given incentives to accept what Thieme says? Here's a concept, maybe you have never heard of it - How about just telling the WHOLE truth? How about a christian researching and testing both sources, with thier own God given brain, in the light of the WHOLE truth to determine what is true? Did Thieme say that Dr. Chafer disagreed with him? No. Thieme didn't. Thieme regularly quoted Dr. Chafer and led people to believe that Thieme was the gatekeeper of Dr. Chafer. Thieme never once mentioned that Dr. Chafer saw Thieme's teachings as a satanic opposite. And in leaving people with only Thieme's error's, Thieme drove christians into the desert and left christians with only Thieme propaganda.

Regardless of the super strict environment and Thieme volumes of tirades and verbal abuse, Thieme could not be trusted to stand up on the porch of getting the basic doctrines correct, then what makes you think he should trusted to cross the street of advanced doctrines?

The fact is Thieme should not be trusted at all to do the christians thinking for them. Under the authority of the Holy Spirit, the christian should think for themself and compare and contrast thier own study with any other persons study(including thier own study) from moment to moment, from place to place, regardless if the place is public or stranded alone on a deserted island.


Truthtesty