Hi mile2,

Your conversation with Katie was very interesting. I knew Bobby had been married 3 times. I actually attended his first wedding to Patty....the whole church was invited. I would question his Biblical qualifications for a pastor also. Divorce is a sin but not the unforgivable sin. There are certain Biblical reasons for divorce, but three times???

"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."

That's pretty funny! Too bad you didn't say that to Katie. I would love to have heard the response. I don't believe that polygamy was a common occurence at that time in the church, so it seems to me that it is talking about divorce.

I have actually done an extensive study on divorce and there are two Greek words used, one for "putting away" (apoluo), and one for "divorce" (apostasion). When a man wanted to get rid of his wife and keep her from remarrying, he could force her to leave without giving her a written bill of divorcement. This was called "putting away", and she could not remarry without becoming an adultress because she was not legally divorced. No one could marry her because they would also be in adultery. Divorce and remarriage was legal in the Old Testament (see Deut 24:1-2). One of the misunderstandings in the New Testament has resulted from the translation in Mat 5:32 in the KJV. The word for "put away" (apoluo) is used twice in this verse. In the first use it is translated "put away", but in the second use it is translated "divorced.". It should have been "put away" both times. I have found a few versions that translate this correctly: the ASV and Young's Literal Translation for example. The actual word for "divorce" is found in Mat 5:31, Mat 19:7, and Mark 10:4.

Truthlover

orangeperuviscacha:

Thanks for your message. This morning I phoned Berachah and asked if Thieme had realized he was wrong in some aspects of his earlier Right Man/ Right Woman teaching, as I had recently heard. The woman who answered said what happened was that people had misunderstood the teaching and taken it out of context. In her words, "It got to be quite a mess." She said Thieme later tried to clarify his RM/RW teaching in his Marriage Series. But she assured me that all the old tapes and the RM/RW booklet, which is currently out of print, are still completely accurate.


Truthlover:

Thank you for sharing your study on "putting away" and "divorce". I'm motivated to research it myself now. Concerning the RM/RW teaching, I think it has been extremely damaging to the tape group I am familiar with, which has been in existence for over 30 years. Of the 8 members who have been faithful attendants, 7 have been divorced, and 2 men now live with women they are not married to.

mile2:

"2 men now live with women they are not married to."

I find this pretty shocking....even Thieme would not have advocated this! I can see how it could happen though in a group of people with no pastor and no accountability; everyone just minding their own business and not being judgmental. This is not Christianity!

Truthlover

Hope this helps everyone, it helped clarify things in my own skull.
What God Has Joined Together
From David Brewer, it is about marriage and divorce. He digs into rabbinical law that was in effect during Jesus walk with us sinners...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2007 10:08PM by kcjones.

I was doing a little reading this morning and found a stark contrast between R.B. Thieme's 'breakthroughs' in 1st John and what another bible scholar wrote. None other than William Tyndale, the man who was burned at the stake so I could read the bible, in English, not needing to knowing Latin,koine greek, or hebrew or rely on some man or men to tell me what it should mean.

A Prologue upon the Three Epistles of St John

The first epistle of saint John containeth the doctrine of a very apostle of Christ, and ought of right to follow his gospel. For as in his epistle he setteth out the true faith, and teacheth by it only all men to be saved and restored unto the favour of God again: even so here in this epistle he goeth againist them that boast themselves of faith and yet continue without good works and teacheth many ways that where true faith is, there the works tarry not behind, and contrary that where the works follow not, there is no true faith but a false imagination and utter darkness. - William Tyndale New Testament Translation 1534. Bold emphasis mine.

To Gene and others who study on Bob, please, please read the whole epistle of 1st John, without the another man's perspective. Tyndale and others gave their lives so you could read God's Word ON YOUR OWN, without a 3 degrees in Language.

With Love,
KCJONES



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2007 05:41AM by kcjones.

To the Forum:


Here's a phrase that thiemites need to become familiar with - "illegitimate totality transfer".


Barr's reputation as one of the most influential biblical scholars and Semitists of the second half of the twentieth century rests on both the range of his interests and the incisive character of his contributions. His first book, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), addressed the linguistic and theological problems associated with transferring a religious tradition from one language into another. He scrutinized several widely accepted features of biblical scholarship at the time and demonstrated fundamental flaws underlying each: the notion that there was a basic difference between the Hebrew way of thinking and the Greek way of thinking; the practice of associating the history of a given word with the history of a theological concept; the use made of etymologies; and the philosophical and linguistic underpinnings of much work in "biblical theology." Drawing on principles from the fields of semantics and linguistics, Barr argued that one cannot simply assume—as he shows many have done—that the linguistic structure of a language reveals the thought structures of the people speaking that language. He was especially critical of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a widely used multi-volume project underway beginning in the 1930s, which Barr found to be all too often guilty of what he called an "illegitimate totality transfer," i.e. the whole range of meanings that a word could have in its various semantic contexts is thought to be present in each individual case. According to Barr, it is much more appropriate to look for theology not in a word but in a sentence or combination of words, a principle that most subsequent scholarly efforts to produce a "theological dictionary" have tried to follow.
[sblonline.org]


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" (TDNT) is a translation of "Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament" (TWNT).


James Barr "Semantics of biblical language" p. 198:
The treatment of this article as a whole, suffers from the common fault of TWNT in devoting most of it's investigations of Greek usage to philisophical-religious usage.


Truthtesty

I am new here but a message board fan and found this one recently.

I am also very familiar with R.B. Thieme, having begun listening to him in 1983 with a great deal of concentrated learning until the mid 90's.

I am also very familiar with the objections to Thieme and Barachah church as a whole.

So let me tell you my experience and conclusions.

Today what is offered by most Evangelical Protestant/Baptist churches, both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic, is going to be GARBAGE such as Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" nonsense, juvenile views reflected in "The Emergent Church" and the "Post-Modern" church (this is just the hippie church being redone with today's clothing, hair and music styles but such proponents imagine they are clever and have found something never considered), Bob Jones University hyper-legalistic types, and "Gender Abandonment" mentalities that have destroyed the clear biblical basis of ecclesiastical structure and authority hence either accepting or looking the other way with the ordination or women Ministers or as many of the Baptists do in their hypocrisy the don't ordain them or call them ministers but let them teach in pulpits as those with ecclesiastical and doctrinal authority.

And the truth is this is just an inkling of the kind of horrendous anti-biblical garbage tolerated and promoted in the alleged Evangelical Protestant/Baptist churches today, both Charismatic and Non-Charismatic (and it is bad enough charismania is practiced so extensively but worse that ministers who clamor to take back America for God look the other way for these Charismaniacal fools who forge the name of God on their work).

Even within half-way sound churches the wacked out "Reformed" and "Calvinist" Pharisees are hard at work sneaking their poison into the moist soil that lays in the hearts of young ministers and impressionable theology students.

And don't think those holding to dispensational schemes in their theology aren't guilty either. Now they operate in ignorance and foolishness in many parts, with their inappropriate divisions and ridiculous and childish use of their license of liberty. Ever been to one of these dispensational assemblies where every other word is "dispensational" and "rightly dividing"? They are like robots regurgitating what they have been told without any real personal scrutiny or evaluation.

But much like the Calvinists and Reformed types, they invest their ego in these system they think make them the clever ones and the most enlightened and illuminated ones. Idiots if you ask me and headed for nasty falls.

_______

And so when I look back over the years and the varying treatments of the doctrines of the Bible I learned from R. B. Thieme I have 4 outstanding observations and conclusions.

I. The body of work

Thieme's word by word, verse by verse, concept by concept exegesis is not just massive but by in large consistent with Orthodox Evangelical doctrine. In others words, he did what most fat, lazy, self-impressed ministers refuse to do, STUDY and TEACH which is what it takes to FEED sheep.

Thieme's work is not without a SMALL area of controversy. While CHARISMATIC ministers deny essential doctrines, while Evangelical ministers dismiss large portions of Scripture and are celebrated for gimmicks and games with books like "Purpose Driven" or "The Prayer of Jabez" while spitting on sound exegesis and hermeneutics to formulate their ideas, Thieme's areas of controversy are in exegetical conclusions that at NO PLACE and at NO TIME deny the essentials of ORTHODOX Evangelical Christianity

II. His Practical Ecclesiology

Thieme was and is right. The shepherd answers to God for his sheep. He took this call seriously. Did he perform with PERFECTION? No, ask yourself is your complaint about his foibles and imperfections or GROSS VIOLATIONS?

Thieme taught regularly that the private lives of others were NONE of anyone else's business. If Thieme is so responsible for building a cult, then this very IMPORTANT element of building one, that of violating the privacy of others, was REJECTED by THIEME.

Because Thieme knew he would answer for the care of the sheep given to him, he guarded them with the charge given to him by God. The fact is most Ministers see it as a game, Bob Thieme did not. He took it seriously. What a disgusting shame most don't. The sheep are a means to an end for most ministers, not the end (their feeding) which is exactly what Bob Thieme understood.

III. His students

Thieme repeatedly made clear that believers were individual priests before God and that were chose under whom they would learn and their learning and growth was before God, not him and not others and that no person was answerable to him or anyone else regarding that choice and no one was to or is to interfere with such decisions. That is NOT the practice of a cult.

Thieme, like any good teacher, will inevitably have weak sheep. This is both the nature of humanity and certainly that of Christianity. Why? Because God made it clear the average profile of those that were saved were not winners in the world. It doesn't mean some couldn't be but it wouldn't be par for the course (by the way, all the more reason I recognize why R.B. Thieme was so insistent on repetitive teaching, living life from a position of strength from Bible Doctrine and insisting on the regular intake of sound Bible doctrine).

And so with such a reality there is bound to be those who wrongfully never go beyond dependency on R.B. Thieme. And to be sure, without count Thieme made it clear the believer's dependency was to be on Bible Doctrine. And so admittedly this kind of weak believer is often reflected in imitating things like Thieme's dress and demeanor which is reflective, NOT of a wrong on the part of R.B. Thieme but a weakness of some students.

Did R.B.Thieme ever promote such dependency? On the contrary, he insisted on the Bible's standard for maturity and independency.

IV. For me

I belong to a good church with good teaching. Now and then I still review some material by R. B. Thieme. I do not agree with every single thought or teaching to come from him but find most of what he has presented to be exegetically and hermeneutically sound.

Take the teachings of John Calvin. Many of today's Calvinists are quite weak in their personalities. They do behave rather similarly to cult members. And though I don't agree with Calvinism, that isn't the point. The question is, does this make John Calvin responsible or those who have read his works and in their immaturity cannot and will not entertain other thoughts outside of the influence of Calvin?

Or the Bible itself. What about it? Many misuse it to form cults. Is this the fault of the Bible? No. Thieme is no different. It is clear and fair to say he did not introduce the principles or practice of cults easily identified and often stated by cults themselves. Thieme categorically REJECTED such ideas and practices. Was he deliberate, guarded with his sheep and took strong control of the ministry given to him by God? Indeed as men should.


The pulpits of America and this world are filled with children, novices and offers of cotton candy. Thieme's popularity was due to inadequate pulpits and this is growing worse day by day. May men committed to sound hermeneutics and serious exegesis enter pulpits more and more and these childish fantasies that "Purpose Driven", "Dance Ministries", "Women in Ministry", "Charismania with horrendous people like O'Steen and TBN", and the "Emergent and Post-Modern" be minimized. Ignorance truly reigns so if indeed you have a good Bible teacher, rejoice today because it is not the predominant trait of the church of Jesus Christ.

Tommy Tsunami:
I. The body of work
Thieme's word by word, verse by verse, concept by concept exegesis is not just massive but by in large consistent with Orthodox Evangelical doctrine.

Orthodox:
You should be more cautious with the use of the term Orthodox. A better word would have been Protestant. RBT is as far removed from the true Orthodox Christian faith as Kenneth Copeland.

Tommy Tsunami:
II. His Practical Ecclesiology
Thieme was and is right. The shepherd answers to God for his sheep.

Orthodox:
He is also to answer to the whole council of the episcopate. The true Orthodox Christian Church is councilliatory in organization. Not the Attila the Hun setting himself up as the sole source of Biblical Teaching for a local congregation, much less individuals spread across the globe.

Tommy Tsunami:
III. His students
And so with such a reality there is bound to be those who wrongfully never go beyond dependency on R.B. Thieme.....Did R.B.Thieme ever promote such dependency? On the contrary, he insisted on the Bible's standard for maturity and independency.

Orthodox:
Is this your attempt at a joke? How many times did he belabor the point that every student was dependent on his Right Pastor for correct doctrinal teaching. Pity poor Nicodemous if he were to have attended Berachah and questioned RBT's teaching after class? He would most likely have been verbally assaulted and told to never come back. I don't ever recall our LORD treating even those out to kill him in such a manner.

Tommy Tsunami:
IV. For me
Now and then I still review some material by R. B. Thieme. I do not agree with every single thought or teaching to come from him but find most of what he has presented to be exegetically and hermeneutically sound.

Orthodox:
Compared to who? The Republican Party, John Birch Society and Ayn Rand? I would agree if that is the case.


It is indeed unfortunate that those individuals who come here looking for answers as to why their Spirit is being troubled over the teachings of this man, should have to continually sift through the weak attempts by the world's Themites to make this man's teachings appear to be infallible.

God's blessings,

To Tsu:


There are many Thieme cheerleading websites on the net, this is not one of them. We do not overlook Thieme's errors here.


Thieme was/is a fascist in the likes of Hitler and Kittel. Thieme's political fascist cult reflects this overly-aggressive, no conscience, immorally murder for Jesus, submit to the viscious Imperial Roman Caeser's authority, for the coin of the realm mentality. Thieme's teachings were an extremist fascist political movement designed to attack liberals and true democracy as Hitler did. 75% of Protestant churches in 1933 submitted to Hitler. Thieme prayed to the Lord, but so did Hitler in his speeches. Hitler followed Luther and spoke that God was dealing with Germany as a nation, just as Thieme spoke to thiemites, that God was dealing with the USA as a nation and they were personally responsible for the USA's future. The Nazi brownshirts would marry in the German churches just as Thieme's highly supported military "special ops" get married at Be"reich"ah. The German "volk" had the entire weight and responsibility of germany on thier shoulders, just as Thieme psycologically overloaded thiemites with the entire responsibilty of America's future. On every Nazi belt buckle was enscribed "Gott Mit Uns" "God is with us" [images.google.com]

People should check out these 2 videos:

Theologians Under Hitler
[www.amazon.com]


And for a christian who had "real guts" (not just a mouth piece) and foresight to resist Hitler

Bonhoeffer (2003)
[www.amazon.com]

Some call Thieme a cult, some say Thieme is cult-like. I say CULT IS NOT A STRONG ENOUGH WORD for the destructive extremist political movement. A destructive cult is quite harmless in comparison, but Thieme's political movement encompasses every aspect of a destructive cult. Everyone saw what Hitler did to the world. Thieme tried to induce (unquestionable obedience to an American Fuhrer) into christianity just as the Nazis Hitler's and Kittel's christianity induced into Germany. Albeit Thieme speaks for the Jews (not necessarily acting for) this time around, but the Nazi evil fascist spirit of Thieme is just as evil and destructive as it was in the 3rd Reich. The "enemy" victims are just 1 group different this time around. Thieme is Kittel reborn and as such Thieme would and does support an extremist "christian speaking" Fuhrer to be a dictator in the USA. Thieme would have been 1st on the list to "smooze" Hitler, especially if it would have given Thieme a military promotion.


Tsu: Thieme's work is not without a SMALL area of controversy. While CHARISMATIC ministers deny essential doctrines, while Evangelical ministers dismiss large portions of Scripture and are celebrated for gimmicks and games with books like "Purpose Driven" or "The Prayer of Jabez" while spitting on sound exegesis and hermeneutics to formulate their ideas, Thieme's areas of controversy are in exegetical conclusions that at NO PLACE and at NO TIME deny the essentials of ORTHODOX Evangelical Christianity


Truthtesty:

Thieme was intentionally controversial, with a chip on his shoulder. Why does Diotrophes attack ministers who have faith in Jesus? Is thier knowledge limited? Yes. Is/was Thieme's knowledge limited? Yes. Thieme is no better than those he attacked. Thieme was not "justified" in attacking them. Those ministers did not spit on sound exegesis they "were having faith in Jesus in thier community".

Dr. Chafer considered doctrine of the blood redemption of Christ very essential and Thieme denied the ORTHODOX doctrine of the efficacy of the shed literal blood of Christ in the blood redemption. The "PLACE" was at Be"reich"ah. The "TIME" was over the past 30 years.

Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 108 All teachers are to be judged by their attitude toward the doctrine of the blood redemption of Christ, rather than by their winsome personalities, their education, or their sincerity. Since the blood redemption of the cross is the central truth and value of the true faith, it being the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23–24), any counterfeit system of doctrine which would omit this essential, must force some secondary truth into the place of prominence.

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).
[www.dts.edu]

Carm says "what makes something non-Christian is when it denies the essential doctrines of the Bible".
[www.carm.org]

Thieme's hermenutics are pathetic. One such example is Thieme says you should insert in place of the Blood, “the SPIRITUAL DEATH” of Christ. This is a violation of the basic hermeneutical principles of Scripture interpretation by setting up a typology in the New Testament based on the anti-type also in the New Testament. Type and anti-type are Old Testament "Type" to New Testament "Anti-Type". This is BASIC hermenuetics and Thieme fumbles the ball. Thieme forces this on the average people who really don't know much about hermenuetics. Most average people think "well he went to school so it must be true" but it is not true. Again this "private interpretation" of Thieme's is to support his false fascist politically extreme ideology.



Truthtesty