To the Forum:


November 17, 2007 08:30AMGeneZ

gene: Yes, Jesus had to die physically in order to guarantee our resurrection *which followed* our salvation from sin. Jesus said "It is Finished." When was that said? Before he died physically? Or, after?


Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Vol. 3 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.


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...


was dated by Christ in relation to the cross...



Truthtesty

GeneZ:

There you go again with the big bold text, which you have been asked repeatedly not to use.

Coloring text to separate it is OK, but please stop using big bold text. It takes up space and is not necessary.

If your posts stay within the rules they will be approved and not edited.

If not, they will be deleted or edited.

You have been warned repeatedly about this.

No name calling, personal attacks, etc.

Stay within the rules you agreed to before posting here.

To whom it may concern:

GeneZ says he won't be posting here any more.

Apparently, he is unable and/or unwilling to follow the rules of this message board.

Quote
GeneZ

Quote
mile2

Gene:

You recently posted:
"It those here did not have their parents make them attend church when they did not want to go, you would not be getting these complaints. Notice how all who are complaining here were children or teenagers when they were made to attend church.

The church was an open door. You could attend if you wanted. If you desired to remain anonymous? No visitors cards were ever handed out for follow up. Its some of the children that hated it that are complaining here. Go back and see who they are. They did not attend out of free will. I would have hated it too if I were not wanting to attend and were made to."

I'm sure there are some young people who were forced to attend Thieme meetings and resented it. But that is NOT my case. So please stop using this false assumption to dismiss everyone's objection to Thieme.

mile2

In their case, I said it explains their emotional reaction. With the exception of you? They all spoke of how they attended as teens or children, and because of family they attended. Why have you kept quiet all this time about what I have been saying? You have been here since September.

For clarification.. Thieme did not have "meetings." That can be read the wrong way. It was church services.

I would never expect everyone to like being there. There were churches I did not want to attend. I simply did not go back.

My question to you would be (for your comment leaves me curious about something)

Were you free to attend, and not return if you wished?

Did anyone try to coerce you into not leaving?

Did anyone contact you afterwards and ask you why you no longer attend?

Were you pressured by others in any way?

And, most of all. Were you free to remain anonymous if you wanted no one to know you, or anything about you?

Again, I must ask...

If he was as horrendous as some here make him out to be? How long did it take for you to decide it was not for you?

If he was anything like they say? I would have been there once, and gone forever.

GeneZ

Gene:
"Why have you kept quiet all this time..."? I'm not obligated to respond to anything you say. What are you trying to imply? Also, Truthlover has said your assumption was not true in his case as well. Actually, your supposition if taken to its logical end would mean that no adult having been introduced to Thieme's teachings would ever reject them.

As far as your questions to me, they are all irrelevant to the subject at hand. I have never said I was forced to attend, etc. I listened to several Thieme tapes after the continued insistence of several family members and friends who were involved in his ministry. From the outset I strongly disagreed with his theology and angry, sarcastic manner of delivery. But in deference to those I love, I decided to, in their words, "Give him a good try."

"Was I pressured by others in any way?" You bet! My rejection of Thieme was not taken well. I was accused of not wanting "the meat" of the Word, not being "positive to doctrine," etc. And to add to that, whenever anything negative came into my life these "tapers" insinuated that it was God disciplining me to lead me to the truth, i.e. Thieme's doctrine. Whenever anything positive happened, it was "grace by association" ( with them of course). How arrogant, insulting, and cruel. But I feel compasion for them because their minds and understanding have greatly distorted. They become more and more like their teacher.

mile2

mile2

Quote
mile2
GeneZ and any other follower of the Thieme ministry:

I assume that since Bobby Thieme is now Berachah's pastor and has tapes available, you listen to him teach as well as CoI. Thieme. I'm sure you are familiar with I Tim. chapter 3, which outlines the qualifications for a leader over the body of believers. I wonder how the members of Berachah and tapers justify Bobby's pastorship, knowing that he has had 3 failed marriages and is currently unmarried.

Of course I'm specifically referring to vs.2, "the husband of one wife", vs.4, "one that ruleth well his own house", and vs.5,"(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?)"

mile2

Gene:

I addressed this post to you on Nov. 14 and you have not yet responded. I understand you have decided not to post here any longer, but maybe you could make an exception. I would really like to know your reasoning.

Quote
mile2

Quote
mile2
GeneZ and any other follower of the Thieme ministry:

I assume that since Bobby Thieme is now Berachah's pastor and has tapes available, you listen to him teach as well as CoI. Thieme. I'm sure you are familiar with I Tim. chapter 3, which outlines the qualifications for a leader over the body of believers. I wonder how the members of Berachah and tapers justify Bobby's pastorship, knowing that he has had 3 failed marriages and is currently unmarried.

Of course I'm specifically referring to vs.2, "the husband of one wife", vs.4, "one that ruleth well his own house", and vs.5,"(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?)"

mile2

Gene:

I addressed this post to you on Nov. 14 and you have not yet responded. I understand you have decided not to post here any longer, but maybe you could make an exception. I would really like to know your reasoning.

mile2:

Thieme got around "the husband of one wife" in 1Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 by interpreting it "the husband of one wife at a time."

truthlover

To the Forum:

We have spoken of SHED BLOOD = KILL on this forum. It seems logical that this was a specific type of killing BY blood letting - bleeding to death. If the AUTHOR would have meant just "violently taking of life" without specifying the "blood shedding" aspect, then the AUTHOR would have used Sphazo [bible1.crosswalk.com] . Which, the AUTHOR did use Sphazo in 9 cases. BUT in Heb 9:22 [bible1.crosswalk.com] and in 8 other cases [bible1.crosswalk.com] the AUTHOR references the necessary specific aspect of "killing by bleeding". If the AUTHOR would have meant Sphazo (not necessarily with or without blood letting) in all cases, then the AUTHOR would have said so. So Sphazo clarifies SHED BLOOD.

Truthtesty

To the Forum:

To be more specific the actual cause of death, may or may not be bleeding to death, but blood letting is necessarily involved. Sphazo still clarifies the necessity of blood letting.

Truthtesty

Truthlover:

Thank you for the information, "Thieme got around the "husband of one wife" by interpretting it " the husband of one wife at a time."

It's interesting because when I first heard that Bobby was one of 3 candidates for the position of pastor at Barachah (supposedly), I phoned the church to ask about divorced men holding that position. I knew at that time that Bobby was divorced once but did not know about his 3 divorces until I later read C.G. Hunt's book. When I called Berachah and posed the question I did not mention Bobby. I was handed over to "Katie" who told me the passage referred to an admonition for the leaders in the church not to have multiple wives. I asked if it would also eliminate divorced men, since they had had more than one wife. Then she said in a sort of hesitating way, it meant "one wife at a time." I'm sure she heard the surprise in my voice when I said "It does? Why is the passage interpreted in that way?"

She then answered in an agitated manner "Well, if it didn't mean that, think of all the wonderful men that couldn't serve as a pastor-teacher!" She went into detail about one famous Bible scholar who was divorced and added that a lot of the time the divorce is the woman's fault. I was really surprised she gave this as a reason because of course the Bible can't be interpreted simply to serve our own purposes, as a matter of expedience. I didn't know then that her answer was part of Thieme's teaching.

I also found it strange that God would warn against polygamy here, when I couldn't think of any other passage in the epistles that dealt with that subject. Thieme's teaching on this passage of 4 words then is that polygamy disqualifies someone from entering the ministry, but divorce does not. So logically if a polygamist wanted to be a church leader, all he would have to do is divorce all but one wife. In God's eyes he would now qualify. Does this make any sense at all?

I also considered what Jesus said in Mark 10.
2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

I used to wonder why God would consider divorced people who remarried to be committing adultery. Then it dawned on me that God is not bound by our civil laws and conventions. He doesn't recognize a piece of paper that says a divorce has been granted. In God's eyes, the parties are still husband and wife. Therefore in Bobby's case, he is now the husband of 3 wives. Jesus also says that in the Old Testament divorce was permitted "because of the hardness of their hearts." So that being the reason for divorce, this hardness of heart would also eliminate a divorced person from a leadership position in the church.

Not long ago I happened to hear a portion of a series of teachings Bobby was giving on, of all things, Right Man/ Right Woman and romantic relationships in general. He spent quite a long time explaining how divorce was a mistake, but it is just like any other sin and we could receive forgiveness for it, just like any other sin. I agree with him that God's forgiveness is certainly available for divorced persons and they can afterwards walk in fellowship with God. But the divorce would still disqualify a person from becoming a pastor or teacher. Just as Moses was certainly forgiven his sin, but was no longer worthy to lead the Hebrews into the Promised Land, so those who are divorced can no longer take a leadership position.

Mile2,

Some time ago, I was discussing with a group member taper the old "Right Man/Right Woman" teaching of Bob. They mentioned to me at the time (after previously holding to the teaching), that Bob had later said he was wrong about this teaching.

When you mentioned in your previous post that his son Bobby was teaching on aspects of this "doctrine", I was surprised, having read awful accounts about the teachings affect on past group members. Did Bobby use the phrase, "Right Man/Right Woman" ?. Or has he changed the teaching somewhat.

The old Berachah Publications book, "Right Man/Right Woman" is not amongst their publications list, on their website anymore.