To the Forum:



im quote: Later, the pastor told her that one can't grow listening to tapes, alone. BULL! If that were true then the epistles would have been useless. The soul must be engaged, not necessarily the body.


Per Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation:
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 spe-
31 Ibid.,pp. 29, 30.
32 Ibid.,p. 34.
113
cialized use: Christian knowledge which “carries with it a corresponding manner of life.”33
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.


Truthtesty

Tommy Tsunami:

Where are you?

In your last post on Jan.11 you said "I am quite able to exegete the passage and have", referring to I Tim. 3:2 (husband of one wife).I am still waiting for your explanation. I hope it is forthcoming, because if it is not, you will be the 3rd supporter of Thieme who has left the forum unable to defend Thieme in this matter.

im quote I quite understand your question, Mile2, and I repeat, I will not stand in judgement of any member of the clergy, whether I think they are legitimate or not. If you wish to do so that is your choice.


Truthtesty: This is part of the problem. The "look the other way" syndrome. What im is saying is that whether Thieme is right or wrong, then im is just not going to say. im, I think you would judge a "bleeding heart" clergy member in a heartbeat. That's a standard "Be"reich"ah approach. Afterall Thieme prejudged them for you. Thieme "gave" you permisssion to judge "bleeding heart" clergy. Why? Politics.


Truthtesty: I say the truth of the Word of God is infintely more important than any corrupt man's (clergy or no clergy) politics. And if Thiemites can't stand for the Truth of the Word of God over Thieme, then truly they truly do not serve the Truth of God. They serve the "word of Thieme".

Truthtesty

To im:


Thieme stole unto himself unwarranted authority, and then from Thieme's stolen unwarranted "authority" "gave" you "permission" "to be" this kind of christian or "permission" "to be" that kind of christian. (And don't forget to vote neocon in November (You have "permission" of course)).

Oh wowy wowy how life "feels" secure when someone else is in charge and all you have to do is blindly submit.

LOL what a crock! That's denial or "divorced from reality".

Soft disposition? I am much much tougher than you (and your kind) notice, but even if I had a soft disposition, at least I would not have your blind disposition.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


If (and they do) thiemites give Thieme a pass on his errors, then thiemites need to think - what's more important? whose side on you on? Are you on the side the words of Thieme? or are you on the side of the Word of God? Are you on the side of self-denial or on the the side of being honest and speaking the truth? How many people will go on in ignorance of the Word of God, if you do not speak out? How long will you go on in ignorance if you do not have the courage to say "maybe Thieme is wrong about this or that"? How long will you go on in intentional denial of the truth? To yourself? To others? How long will you go on being intimidated by bullying tactics of Thieme's arrogant academics?

Would not this "code of silence" behaviour about the Truth of God's word, be the exact opposite of spiritual maturity? And the spiritually mature relationships as Dr. Wall paraphrases from the bible "Speaking the Truth in love"?

What corrupt man's ego is "greater" than God or corrupt group of people "greater" than God, that LIE(S) and FALSEHOODS about the Word of God should be overlooked and hidden from other people? Swept under the rug?

Tell me thiemites how do you distinguish between the Word of God and the words of Thieme? or do you discern a difference at all?

Can you say "maybe Thieme is wrong about this or that"?

Try it.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


In case anyone is missing this [forum.culteducation.com]

Just thought I would let people know it's going on, if they haven't noticed it.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Clearly Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich says at times the figurative usage of haima means shed blood = literally kill:

shed blood = kill (Aeschyl.; Gen 9:6, 37:22, Lev 17:4,13, 1Km 25:31 al.;... Luke 11: 50, Acts 22:20, Rom. 3:15 (Ps 13:3, Is 59:7) Rv 16:6, Luke 11:51, Mt 23:20, Rv 16:6, 18:24, 17:6, 19:2, (1Km 9:7), 6:10, Pol 2:1, Mt 27: 4,24, Heb 12:4, ....

Clearly Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich says at other times that the figurative usage of haima means literal blood and literal life sacrificed:

b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.).


This goes on:

Clearly Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich says at other times that the figurative/literal usage of haima means (literal Blood and literal Life) as an expiatory sacrifice OF the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus:
blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9, B 5:1

B 5:1 stands for Barnabas 5:1. It reads: Barnabas 5:1
For to this end the Lord endured to deliver His flesh unto corruption, that by the remission of sins we might be cleansed, which cleansing is through the blood of His sprinkling.

Clearly what is in Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich's view is the literal blood and literal life of Jesus.


And it goes on:

blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice As the means from freeing from guilt Rom 5:9

blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice Esp. in the institution of the Lord's supper Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; cf. 10:16; J 6:53-5; 1J 5:6,8

blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice Described as bringing about fellowship Acts 20:28, Eph 2:13, Col 1:20

blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice Love descr. as the blood of Jesus ITr 8:1, IRom 7:3, ISm 1:1, IEph1:1,

(The I stands for Ignatius so ITr stands for Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians, and so on: Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius Epistle to the Romans, Ignatius Epistle to the Philadelphians, Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, and Ignatius Epistle to Polycarp).


I presented a brief description of b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice. The more detailed references can be read on page 23 of the following download:
[www.4shared.com]

You can read about Blood (Haima) from Bauer, Ardnt, and Gingrich pages 22 and 23 for yourself here
[www.4shared.com]
[www.4shared.com]

Clearly what is in Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich's view is the literal blood and literal life of Jesus.

There is but 1 Flesh and Blood authority - the Flesh and Blood of Jesus.

The flesh and blood of Thieme was not an authority.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Perhaps I should rephrase that. No human authority should be "idolized" or held in front of the Flesh and Blood authority of Jesus. Certainly, the literal Shed Blood of Christ should not be disrespected as it is by Thieme. Thieme promotes himself and demotes the authority of the Flesh and Blood of Christ.

Truthtesty

<sub>January 22, 2008 09:49PMmile2
Date Added: 09/06/2007
Posts: 32

Tommy Tsunami:

Where are you?

In your last post on Jan.11 you said "I am quite able to exegete the passage and have", referring to I Tim. 3:2 (husband of one wife).I am still waiting for your explanation. I hope it is forthcoming, because if it is not, you will be the 3rd supporter of Thieme who has left the forum unable to defend Thieme in this matter.</sub>

Where are you Tommy?


Truthtesty