R.B. Thieme Jr.
Date: February 05, 2007 03:12AM
Ephesians said: Thieme did not begin teaching that "the love of God is His integrity" until the year 2000. Up until then, the attributes of justice and righteousness, along with His love were taught as composites of His integrity.
Ephesians said: So I have presented an argument, the initial teaching and the revision..you said this revision didn't happen so the ball is in your court to show that it didn't..all you have to do is to refer to a tape series; I can find the lesson from there.
Ephesians said: We already have argument one in progress, Wall complains of Thieme's strictured view of God's love in his dissertation. Indeed, Thieme used to teach that, God's love was only an anthropopathic component of His character, and must first be filtered through his righteousness and justice. I point out that, as of 2000, Thieme completely revised this...he began to teach the Love of God is His integrity. This is, though not nearly a 180, a major revision.
Testy says: Dr. Wall didn't "complain" as you do. Dr. Wall was being consructively critical.
Per Dr. Wall: Critique
Thieme's basic methodology of communicating God's essence is commendable and very helpful to the beginning Bible student. The structure of his more recent analysis, however, at times is somewhat difficult to follow. For example, he includes personality under the category of God's spirituality, which does not seem appropriate. The content of this recent analysis, nevertheless, does contain a number of very helpful observations. example, he observes that God's infinity is “intensive rather than extensive, that is, God is not to be thought of as merely extending infinitely beyond time and space, but as possessing within Himself infinite resources.” Thieme's analysis of God's love is interesting, but it raises some serious questions. First, Thieme assumes that the biblical revelation concerning God's love for sinners (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8) is only a description of the "divine motivation in human terms that we can understand." For him, the term love in the Bible, when used with reference to God, is not attributing love to God, but is an anthropopathism for God's divine motivation. Is this not a presumptuous attempt to do a better job of describing the divine motivation than God Himself has done
through His revelation? Second, if we cannot take God's descriptions of His own attributes and attitudes at face value, how can we know what God is like unless we turn to extra biblical logic and surmising? Furthermore, is it valid to speak of divine anthropopathisms at all? Although anthropomorphisms can be shown to occur in the Scriptures (since God is spirit and man is physical), the existence of anthropopathisms is open to question, for both God and man are personalities and thus similar in the areas of thinking, feeling, and willing. [b:18addd7770]Therefore, Thieme's view, that God's love for man is an anthropopathism, is at best a speculative possibility, and therefore improper for the development of sound doctrine based upon the Scriptures.[/b:18addd7770] [b:18addd7770]It should also be noted that the exegetical basis for Thieme's anthropopathic love in Malachi I is no more than a Hebraism for placing one party above another in one's choice.[/b:18addd7770] As such the terminology of love and hate are used in the New Testament to describe the believer's attitude toward his family and Christ (Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26). [b:18addd7770]Therefore, it does not provide a textual basis for anthropopathic love. [/b:18addd7770]Thieme's teaching on the justice of God also raises some important questions. Thieme rightly observes that God's loving salvation provisions for man cannot be given to him without the justice of God being satisfied However, must it be concluded that God's love for man was not involved prior to the cross? The New Testament clearly states that God loved the world (John 3:16), and God loved the sinner (Rom. 5:8), before the cross. Also, does not the teaching, that the mature will receive more blessings from the justice of God, imply that some men deserve God's blessings based. The obvious significance of the term “image of God.” [b:18addd7770]It should be observed also that Thieme's basis for his view of divine love does not rest upon any change whatsoever in the Greek vocabulary choice of the biblical writers. It is purely a deduction rooted in his own system and a speculation pressed far beyond the biblical evidence. [/b:18addd7770]Thieme's basic teaching is similar to Chafer's at this point. Chafer taught that God could not directly forgive sin; His grace had to first supply a substitute expiation to satisfy the just demands of God's character. upon human work -- the work of taking in Bible doctrine in the discipline of the local church under the teaching of a pastor-teacher? [b:18addd7770]Is this not contrary to the biblical emphasis on grace?[/b:18addd7770]
Thieme has raised some profound issues relative to the nature of God, and at times appears to be moving toward some significant theological contributions. [b:18addd7770]However, some serious theological and exegetical questions remain unanswered with regard to his conclusions[/b:18addd7770].
Testy says: I never said a revision didn't happen I said [i:18addd7770] "I am sure Thieme has dusted off a few words here and there, but there are no major changes." If you want major change Ephesians Thieme would have had to change his cultic doctrine of right pastor."[/i:18addd7770][b:18addd7770]It does not appear that Thieme’s definition of God's integrity(holiness) included love as a composite of integrity to begin with, as you claimed, just justice and righteousness. [/b:18addd7770]However, Thieme did state that God's love could only be directed towards God's integrity, in the 1970s, "the only object worthy of God's love".
Testy says: Using Dr. Wall's dissertation (1979) it states Thieme’s position: [b:18addd7770]God's holiness(integrity) is made up of his righteousness and justice. [/b:18addd7770]
Testy says: Using Dr. Wall's dissertation (1979) it states Thieme’s position: " [b:18addd7770]God does not provide blessings for men because of love; rather it is because of His justice, since God's love can only be directed toward His own integrity".[/b:18addd7770]
Testy says: Using Dr. Wall's dissertation (1979) it states Thieme’s position: [b:18addd7770]"This love was directed toward God Himself, in particular His own integrity (or holiness), the only object worthy of God's love." [/b:18addd7770]
Testy says: In the 1970's, Thieme had already repeatedly emphasized a major singular connection between God's love and God's integrity(holiness). [b:18addd7770]I don't see any significant difference between saying "God's love can only be directed towards God's integrity(holiness)" and saying "God's love is his integrity". [/b:18addd7770]Fickle wordplay at best. I certainly don't consider this "missing out on a lot". It certainly doesn't make any portion of Dr. Wall's dissertation moot. [b:18addd7770]It certainly doesn't renounce and/or apologize for Thieme's false cult doctrine of right pastor, which you have conveniently chosen not to argue. Where are the portions of Thieme's "changed" false doctrines that you claim have made portions of Dr. Wall's dissertation moot?[/b:18addd7770]
By the way did Thieme apologize for mis-teaching even within his own closed system? Bet not.
You want to talk about motivation? Why don't you talk about the doctrinal error of Thieme's arrogant ego motivations? Why don't you talk about the doctrinal error of Thieme's "control freak" motivations? Why don't you talk about the doctrinal error because of Thieme's political motivations?
Why don't you try to clean up those misconceptions?
We should look at the motivations of teachers very very hard, because sooner or later they will certainly be false at some point. In Thieme's case it's sooner rather than later.