Ephesians said: As to the rest of your post (ad hominem attacks against me and/or Thieme aside)...I never said Wall's dissertation was straw-man, I said that asserting the idea that Wall's doctoral status assigns him an authority in which he pulls rank over Thieme and in turn his ideas are superior is straw-man...I never said the concept of debating is not profitable, just that to demand a church be an avenue for debate with the pastor of that church is a little over the top, and that just because one side may appear to win in the mind of an audience, does not make the winner "right"...and so on and so on....at this point I feel like I'm up against a brick wall here with a person on an aggressive one-man crusade to destroy Thieme. But it's definitely been interesting talking to you.

Truthtesty says: You can paint as much lipstick on the Thieme pig as you want, it's still a pig. Ad hominem attacks? lol I am presenting the facts as others on this forum who are cautious of Thieme. You are trying to pretend (like all Thiemeites) that nothing is wrong and trying to do damage control as the Thieme ship is sinking.

Oh so when Thieme touted for years on the back of his in-house booklets that he graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary and told people that they couldn't "get anything out" of the bible from thier own personal study, that they should submit to Thieme's false authority to "get out" of the bible what's necessary, that Thieme wasn't pulling rank? That wasn't Thieme's strawman arguement? You must be kidding. This was obvious intimidation. Ok So now that someone has "out-studied" Thieme at Dallas Theological Seminary now your saying that Dr. Wall's studying should not be considered anything that Thieme should "get out" of the bible? Obvious hypocrasy and deceit.

I am certain that anyone who wanted to debate David Koresh, Jim Jones or the BTK killer would have been considered "over the top" by thier followers as well.

You think I am on a personal crusade to destroy Thieme? The only person who destroyed Thieme was Thieme, the moments he decided to be deceitful about the bible - the moment Thieme went on an aggressive 1 man crusade for himself. All I am doing is presenting the facts. If Thieme or you don't like it, then Thieme should not have crossed the line.

You feel like your up against a brick wall because your running into the truth and you want the truth to be something different than what it is. Truth has a way of doing that.

Take Care

Truthtesty

one quick revision - I apologize, I mistakingly said in my previous post John MacArthur was president of DTS. He was not, he was president of Master's College.

To Ephesians:

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.

Take Care

Truthtesty

Testy: [i:5716bbbc9a]"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."[/i:5716bbbc9a]

Again, one more revision, because this [i:5716bbbc9a]really[/i:5716bbbc9a] needs to be clarified, thanks for bringing it up, by the way.

Thieme's teaching as of 1978 (Wall's dissertation has a '78 copyright) was that, yes, God's integrity is made of His Justice and His righteousness, but he always taught that His love was intrinsically fused together with this [i:5716bbbc9a]in the way that His integrity deals with mankind[/i:5716bbbc9a]. This is really important to clarify, so thanks again for bringing it up. And, yes, Thieme has taught as far back as I can remember that God loves His own integrity.

At any rate, the point still stands that Thieme's teaching is a [i:5716bbbc9a]major[/i:5716bbbc9a] revision. Saying you love something and saying your love [i:5716bbbc9a][b:5716bbbc9a]is[/b:5716bbbc9a][/i:5716bbbc9a] that thing are two very different concepts.

To Ephesians:

Truthtesty says: I don't see your point still standing. I see this change (as I said before) as a dusting off a few words. You see this as a major 4th of July fireworks display. I guess if Thieme taught for another 30 some odd years and then revised his rhetoric to "uh well now JUSTICE AND ARE RIGHTEOUSNESS ARE GOD'S LOVE", then I you'd think that's a fireworks display too. Word play at best, but what it really shows is that Thieme DOES NOT KNOW THE TRUE IMAGE OF GOD, and neither do you. No man or woman can. That's why it's called FAITH. Just because you personally have corrupted to Thieme and yield your beliefs to his every word doesn't mean that it's the truth. There are many excellent theologians out there. You could consult with many of them.

Truthtesty says: By the way did Thieme send his exegetical work to Dallas Theological Seminary to get it checked out? or any seminary for that matter? Or any of the many doctors of theology? Bet not

Ephesians said: Thieme's teaching as of 1978 (Wall's dissertation has a '78 copyright)

Truthtesty says: When I interviewed Dr. Wall he said that the dissertation did not actually come out until 1979.

Truthtesty says: A MAJOR change would be Thieme renouncing his false cult doctrine of right pastor. Which you have conveniently bypassed time and time again.

Take Care

Truthtesty

To Ephesians:

Ephesians said: Before this era, people really did have to trust what the authorities told them. It was just too cumbersome for the average person with a family and full time job to go into heavy scholarly research on any given topic...so many people tended to just take what they were given.

Truthtesty says: There were many excellent choices other than Thieme even prior to the internet. Anyone who wasn't gutless in the face of authority and remained true to thier faith in Jesus, and true to thier faith in thier own good conscience could see that Thieme was false in most of his teachings, even before the age of the internet and Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation being made available worldwide.

This brings me to reference the Stanley Milgram experiment. The Milgram experiment basically proved that 6 out of 10 (college educated) people, with just the appearance of someone being in an authority position over them will follow the repeated commands of that person in authority, even to the point of torturing an innocent person until they pass out.

A small majority of people in this world are gutless and do not question authority for many reasons, usually because they want material gains and they are scared. They have been pre-conditioned to yield and accept whatever a person in an appearance of authority tells them to do even if it's contrary to thier own concsience.

Truthtesty

To Ephesians:

How's your vacation?

Ephesians said: One additional thing I need to add...Dr. Wall's thesis was written in the late '70's.[b:17a34d4e07] Thieme has revised and changed so many doctrines in the 20 years since then, as to make several portions of his thesis moot. [/b:17a34d4e07]As an example, you mentioned Thieme's teachings of love..as of 2000 Thieme had come to teach that the love of God IS his integrity; they are synonymous. Anybody who left the church over 20 years ago has missed out on a lot. In some cases there are arguments going on over views that Thieme no longer holds, or has revised.

Truthtesty says: If Thieme has made a correction to Thieme's errors that Dr. Wall has pointed out as of the year 2000 and after, then Dr. Wall's dissertation could still be used as a precautionary guide (not moot). However, I note you saying something like tapes from the 60', 70's, 80's, 90's are still available on the web. In this case Dr. Wall's dissertation would be most appropriate [b:17a34d4e07](not moot)[/b:17a34d4e07] because all those thousands of hours would still be full of errors(and available on the web) even if Thieme made a correction in 2000. Dr. Wall's dissertation could still be used as a precautionary guide to Thieme's overall destructive cult behaviour, cult tactics and misinformation, even if Thieme revised or changed some of his teachings (not moot). Therefore [b:17a34d4e07]your point[/b:17a34d4e07] that Dr. Wall's dissertation is moot because Thieme has revised and changed so many (Thieme) doctrines, [b:17a34d4e07]does not stand[/b:17a34d4e07].

Back to one of your points:
I don't remember the series in 1976 that I heard Thieme say God's love is his integrity. I imagine if you listen to the whole 1976 year's tapes you'll find it.

By the way, how was Thieme's alzheimers in the year 2000?

Truthtesty

I left Berachah shortly after Thieme taught that God's justice takes precendence over His love. I had trouble with that one. This was back in the late 70s or early 80s. I later heard that he had recanted that doctrine.

How many other people left Berachah before he recanted? How many people died before he recanted?

Life's too short for me to accept that any human is an authority on God and His character. He left us His word. He left us His Spirit. His Spirit is my translator.

We're all going to be wrong about some of our thoughts on God.

Amen Happy!

I quit going in 1977-78, I had to leave home to stop it.

Actually I'd be very interested in what doctrines Thieme recanted on. One of the ways cops know when someone is lying when they interrogate supsects, is that the suspects story keeps changing.

Truthtesty

Quote
rrmoderator
Attempting to hide behind the bible and dismiss criticism as somehow "satanic" is a common practice of groups called "cults" that manipulate the bible and Christian beliefs.

Frankly, it's not a "logical thought" to blame "Satan" for criticism, but rather a way that many cult members dismiss anything they don't want to deal with.

Taken within this context it's a very telling remark.

That thought was not pushed from the pulpit. That thought is based upon personal opinion of certain members, perhaps.

I have seen in churches whenever things go wrong? Satan is blamed. Its more common than some here give credit for. Cults teach that from the pulpit as to create unity against a common enemy. That was not taught from the pulpit of RBT. Though, the topic would have been taught on if a passage being exegeted covered it.

I find this interesting how the word cult is used so freely. Got a gripe against some ministry? Its a cult. :lol: Oh well. So much for the ire of man.

GeneZ