Current Page: 12 of 203
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Galiban ()
Date: February 14, 2007 08:46AM

[b:672f6e164b]This is to Spiritual Liberty and John Doe.[/b:672f6e164b]

I am not a Member of Berachah Church. However, I study under Robert McLaughlin who was a student of Thieme and ordained by him. Thieme is a great theologian and I am still thankful to have his teachings available to me as I strive for spiritual adulthood. I also thank God that he has taught for so many years a faithful and diligent body at that church.
I am hoping to clarify for you the doctrines on those teachings.
I realize that you are not a theologian, so I urge you to obtain a strong’s concordance and study out these scriptures and become one. Your life will never be the same when you study the truth that sets you free.

[b:672f6e164b]The Filling of the Spirit. Confession of sin and rebound.[/b:672f6e164b]

The bible had one author. That is God the Holy Spirit. Every passage is divinely inspired. The men who penned it were the instruments used by God. You CAN NOT say that one verse has no bearing on another. It should all be learned Line up Line, Verse upon Verse and Precept upon Precept. (Heb 4:12, John 1:1, 2Tim 3:16,)

[b:672f6e164b]Every Christian is filled with the Holy spirit. First some clear concepts I believe you already know.[/b:672f6e164b]
((John 7:37; 14:16; Acts 11:16,17; Romans 5:5; 8:9,16; I Corinthians 2:12; 3:16;
6:19,20; II Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; 6:16; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:13; 3:17;
Colossians 1:27; I John 2:20).

Even the members of the church at Corinth, who were
said to be “carnal” and “babes in Christ,” possessed the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 3:1-3;
5:19; 6:19; 1:7). Every Christian, even if he or she is not living on a high level
spiritually, is the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 3:16,17; 6:19,20). It is the
unbeliever who does not have the Spirit of the Living God alive within him (Romans
8:9; Jude 1:19).

[b:672f6e164b]Operating with the Holy spirit[/b:672f6e164b]
In Eph 4:30 and 1Thes 5:19 you can grieve or quench the Spirit. You are commanded not to do this in 1Thes 5:19. You lose the control of the Holy Spirit (or control of God to direct your path and viewpoint) when you grieve the Holy Spirit who is your teacher and counselor. (John 14:25)
Romans 8:5 describes nicely that when you operate of the Spirit you will have divine viewpoint. This divine viewpoint is incompatible with the flesh.( Romans 8:6-7)
That filling of the Spirit is allowing God to control you (Eph 4:23) and operating in his character and nature rather than the flesh that is Hostile to God and which is completely depraved and dead, unable to please God. (Romans 6:1-4 & 8:6-8, Ephesians 2:5, Colossians 2:13)

We are to set aside the old man, the former life of the flesh in Eph 4:22, and to operate with the filling of the Spirit of God in your mind, this is the means to allow God to control you in Eph 4:23 (Strongs number 4151 for the Triune Spirit of God, realize this is not the human spirit in your mind but the Divine ). Then to put on the new man that has been developed by that control of the Holy Spirit in you (Eph 4:24) and the daily intake of Bible Doctrine (Acts 17:11, 19:9, Matthew 6:12) for the Holy Spirit only teaches you based upon what you hear. (John 14:26 & 16:13)
That new man inside of you is the Image of God making you righteous and holy. (Eph 4:24)
If you are unclean you cannot have contact with God. (1 John 1:5, Habakkuk 1:13) You lack fellowship with the Father you lack the mind of Christ, and the counsel and ministry of the Holy Spirit. (Eph 4:30, 1Thes 5:19 The Spirit, 1 John 1:6 The Father, John 13:8 The Son)

This is to the Ephesians church, therefore, all believers have a choice of which nature to operate in.
We must clearly understand that we have a choice in operating with the Spirit in our minds or operating in the sin nature/old man/flesh, which is completely depraved, hostile to God.




[b:672f6e164b]The commands from the Bible to confess our sins.(Rebound)[/b:672f6e164b]
According to John 14:21 If you obey Jesus’ commandments you love him.
He commands us to have our feet washed. (John 13:10)
First in the upper room discourse we must look at the symbolism of Jesus washing the disciples feet. John 13:5
Peter refuses to allow his feet to be washed. (John 13:8). Jesus states that if you do not allow your feet to be washed you have no share with Him (John 13:8).
After Peters continued lack of understanding Jesus states to him “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.” (John 13:10) The bathing is a representation of salvation; the foot washing is the confession of sin to then be made “completely clean”, this is operating in experiential righteousness not just in your righteous position, when coming to God in prayer to regain the filling of the Spirit.

A couple sentences down Jesus in John 13:7 states that you will be blessed when you understand these things. It is vitally important that you confess your sins on a regular basis (ideally when you commit them. However, you will not always know what is a sin and what is not. As well, you may even forget sins that you committed an hour ago. God has a plan for this. 1 John 1:9. If we confess ours sins God will forgive those sins and “cleanse”(Hint: please notice the analogy) from all unknown or forgotten ones.

Understand we need to be restored to fellowship with God. God cannot have contact with Sin. (1 John 1:5, Habakkuk 1:13)
You cannot have fellowship with Him and operate according to the flesh. To state such is a lie. (1 John 1:6)
1 John 1:7 states to have that fellowship we must be “cleansed”(again notice the analogy) from that unrighteousness by the blood of the cross.
1 John 1:8 states that we do bear the guilt of the sin even after salvation.
1 John 1:9 gives us the protocol to cleanse ourselves through simple confession and then we are made clean and can have fellowship.

[b:672f6e164b]Loser Believer - There is much more in the Bible than what is stated here.[/b:672f6e164b]
Galatians 5:13-21 Does a great job of explaining the concept of a "loser believer". First
Paul states that the Galatians should not use their freedom to operate in the flesh. At the end he states that those who practice such things that are listed in the scripture will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Not loss of salvation but the actual loss of rewards in the eternal state. They will be in heaven but not receive their inheritance.
Revelation 2-7. The “one who overcomes” eats of the Tree of Life. This by default states that some in heaven will not overcome.
Revelation 2-11 states you will not loss any family members to Hell if you are “one who overcomes”
1 Cor 3:10-15 You will suffer loss if you create dead works. Clearly again loss is portrayed here.
I could go on with many scriptures but the winner believer is clearly portrayed here with blessings in the eternal state.
Lastly, there is a race that is set before us to be run, (Hebrews 12:1) and in a race there are losers.
A “loser” believer is an incredible analogy to drive home and have impact on a person that does not maintain the fellowship with God above

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Truthtesty ()
Date: February 14, 2007 10:03AM

Truthtesty states: Flaming? me no, but it looks like you should know better. It looks like as long as things are going your way you have no problems with rules. You only have problems with rules when your not getting what you want. Oh an how you "look forward to emplemenation" of rules.


Genez posted to another forum:
GeneZ 10-25-2004 04:03 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Matt14
The new rules were instituted to make this a place where people can discuss the Bible without interruption from silly, off-topic distractions. Wouldn't that be nice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to see that. [b:a890bcbcce]This way we do not have to wear a gun and a sword. [/b:a890bcbcce]I figured, "when in Rome, do as the Romans" when I got here. Nice to see that certain things will no longer be tolerated.

I think everyone should take a good look at the new rules. Certain negative forces lurking here (which tempted me not to waste my time here) appear to[b:a890bcbcce]no longer be tolerated by the new rules. Looking forward to implementation. [/b:a890bcbcce]

The reason we should all look at the new rules is because when we were without them, many here developed certain tactics in order to confront negativity that was not being restrained at that time. Certain ways must now be dropped that were ignored in the past.

Rule No. 5 - No Promotion of Other Religions

[b:a890bcbcce]5) You will not post any messages, links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Christianity. This would include no promotion of cults or other doctrines considered heretical. Debate of these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This is a forum for the discussion of the Bible, as the name suggests. If you cannot abide by this, please do not use our site. Non-believers who are not genuinely trying to learn and discuss the Bible must restrict their posts and comments to the Critic’s Agora forum. Any posts violating this are subject to removal. If you are a non-believer and your purpose is to attack the Bible, perhaps another message board would be your best best. However, if you have serious critical questions and are actually interested in hearing answers, post them in the Critic's Agora. The admin and moderators will make the determination as to whether a user is asking "learning questions" or merely attacking Christianity.[/b:a890bcbcce]

Grace and peace (with the rules)..... genez


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color:a890bcbcce]

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: SpiritualLiberty ()
Date: February 14, 2007 11:25AM

Hello again, ephesians,

Been a bit tied up this past week and a half—started a new job with MetLife, plus getting ready and eagerly anticipating my upcoming wedding on the 25th. However, I do wish to respond to your posts as promptly as I can, because we are discussing serious Biblical issues as fellow Christians, and I believe there are some important principles that you have not adequately considered.

Concerning “rebound,” you have never directly answered most of my points. You have made a few general statements expressing your agreement with Thieme’s doctrine (sorry for the misunderstanding) and then a few vague comments about the “present tense” of “confess” ([i:5cb5c46640]homologeo[/i:5cb5c46640]) and a “black-and-white” concept of spirituality. You have not made any real effort to directly answer any of my questions concerning the serious theological problems involved in this teaching or the extreme consequences (in time and eternity) that Thieme pronounces for those who fail to “rebound.” I am therefore going to repeat some of my questions and ask several more, in a simple, straightforward manner, and I would simply ask you to answer them in like manner.

Again, we need to start with the premise of the consequences that Thieme himself describes for all those who reject his doctrine of “rebound.” The following quotes are taken from [u:5cb5c46640]rbthieme.org [/u:5cb5c46640]and “Rebound and Keep Moving” (emphasis mine)—and I could fill page after page with statements like this made by Thieme and other Thiemite pastors:

[i:5cb5c46640]When the believer sins, [b:5cb5c46640]fellowship with God is broken[/b:5cb5c46640], the filling of the Holy Spirit is temporarily lost, and [b:5cb5c46640]spiritual progress ceases[/b:5cb5c46640].[/i:5cb5c46640] [If we dare to reject Thieme’s doctrine of “rebound,” we have no access to God and no spiritual life whatsoever.]

[i:5cb5c46640]Rebound is our [b:5cb5c46640]access to intimacy with the Lord[/b:5cb5c46640], the gateway to divine power in our lives, our [b:5cb5c46640]license to serve the Lord[/b:5cb5c46640]. [/i:5cb5c46640][We can never serve the Lord in any way if we don’t practice “rebound.” Everything we do in this life, no matter how humbly and faithfully, is meaningless to God without “rebound.”]

[i:5cb5c46640]When rebound is neglected, carnality is perpetuated and [b:5cb5c46640]the spiritual life self-destructs[/b:5cb5c46640]. [/i:5cb5c46640][Our spiritual life and Christian walk are completely destroyed when we don’t “rebound.” We are doomed to become “loser believers.”]

[i:5cb5c46640]Unless rebound is used this intensive discipline [b:5cb5c46640]becomes dying discipline[/b:5cb5c46640], the sin unto death. [/i:5cb5c46640][If we don’t “rebound,” God will kill us, and we will die a miserable death as “loser believers.”]

[i:5cb5c46640]This false doctrine [/i:5cb5c46640][rejecting “rebound”] [i:5cb5c46640]attacks [b:5cb5c46640]the very foundation of your spiritual life[/b:5cb5c46640]. To believe this lie is to live a life of [b:5cb5c46640]perpetual carnality[/b:5cb5c46640], [b:5cb5c46640]reversionism[/b:5cb5c46640], and eventually [b:5cb5c46640]die the sin unto death[/b:5cb5c46640]. [/i:5cb5c46640][This pretty much sums it up.]

[b:5cb5c46640]Question 1: [/b:5cb5c46640]Many Christians like myself, who are endeavoring to learn God’s Word and serve Him as best we know how, have rejected Thieme’s “rebound” doctrine, and we do not practice it. Do we have no access to God and no spiritual life? Yes or No, ephesians?

[b:5cb5c46640]Q2:[/b:5cb5c46640] Is it impossible for us to ever legitimately serve the Lord since we don’t “rebound”?

[b:5cb5c46640]Q3:[/b:5cb5c46640] Are we in constant, perpetual carnality for our entire life because we don’t “rebound”?

[b:5cb5c46640]Q4:[/b:5cb5c46640] Do our prayers “go no higher than the ceiling”?

[b:5cb5c46640]Q5:[/b:5cb5c46640] Are we under God’s curse for not “rebounding”?

[b:5cb5c46640]Q6:[/b:5cb5c46640] Thieme teaches dogmatically that all of us who don’t “rebound” will die a miserable death as “loser believers” (and there is nothing “metaphorical” about this fate). Is this true, ephesians?

[b:5cb5c46640]Q7:[/b:5cb5c46640] Are we certain to end up “LOSERS” for all eternity because we won’t “rebound”?

[b:5cb5c46640]Q8:[/b:5cb5c46640] Will our forfeited inheritance always be there to remind us? (Thieme teaches that this will [i:5cb5c46640]literally [/i:5cb5c46640]happen to us.)

[b:5cb5c46640]Q9:[/b:5cb5c46640] Will we be “shrinking in shame” at the Judgment Seat of Christ because we spent our life “out of fellowship”? (There is certainly nothing metaphorical about this.)

[b:5cb5c46640]Q10:[/b:5cb5c46640] You said that “[i:5cb5c46640]perhaps[/i:5cb5c46640]” this experience of shame will happen to “losers.” Will it happen, or won’t it? (Experiencing shame in our glorified resurrected bodies, possessing only the prefect righteousness of Christ Himself, at a time when the Bible only promises us great and exceeding joy?)

[b:5cb5c46640]Q11:[/b:5cb5c46640] Is there, or is there not, a gazebo in the eternal Paradise, where only the “winners” can enter, and the “losers” can not? Yes or No? (Thieme and every Thiemite pastor I have ever heard never even hinted that these things were only “metaphorical” and shouldn’t be taken literally. In my position at my former church, I personally met and corresponded with hundreds of Thieme followers from across the country and from other countries. Not one of them ever expressed this metaphorical interpretation of “winners” and “losers” in heaven that you have, ephesians. Apparently, it is only “extremely obvious” to you.)

[b:5cb5c46640]Q12:[/b:5cb5c46640] Do only the “winners” have the privilege of eating of the Tree of Life in the eternal Paradise of God, while the “losers” are excluded? Or is this just another one of Thieme’s “metaphors” that he forgot to tell us was a “metaphor”?

These are very serious doctrinal questions about the spiritual condition of God’s people in the midst of our spiritual battle in this life, and even more importantly, for all eternity. If these things are indeed true about me and my Christian brethren, then now is your opportunity to warn us, ephesians...so that we can escape the sin unto death and eternal “loser” status. But if they are not true, then you are forced to admit that Thieme’s teaching is wrong.

John and I cover these subjects of “rebound,” “loser believers,” “corrected translations” and the Koine Greek issue, etc. much more thoroughly in our writings. I would once again challenge you to read them, and see if you can honestly refute them. As a very wise man once said, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

Liberty

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: SpiritualLiberty ()
Date: February 14, 2007 11:36AM

ephesians,

You mentioned the “present tense” of the verb in 1 John 1:9. This is a prime example of the deficiency of Thieme’s so-called “corrected” translations, and how they would never stand up to criticism if posted online, where anyone fluent in Greek could read them. (I always wondered why, if Thieme’s “corrected” translations are so much better than all the “terrible” translations he is “correcting,” then why did he never publish his own version of the Bible? What a great benefit it would be for Christianity, to have Thieme’s “corrected” Bible!) The way Thieme translated verbs in the present tense was very often wrong. What Thieme consistently did was change the basic present tense into a [i:3bc5d29ec4]present participle[/i:3bc5d29ec4]. “Walk” became “keep on walking”; “confess” became “keep on confessing”; etc. However, whether you’re reading Greek or English, the present tense does not necessarily connote ongoing action. This is a very simple, common sense concept, of which there are innumerable examples.

Consider the verb “drink.” Jesus said to the woman at the well, “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever [b:3bc5d29ec4]drinketh [/b:3bc5d29ec4]of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” Whoever “drinks” (present tense) of the water of life will be eternally saved—this is a one-time action. On the other hand, if I say, “Joe drinks soda when he’s thirsty,” obviously this is an action that is repeated indefinitely. The [i:3bc5d29ec4]context [/i:3bc5d29ec4]of the verb makes its meaning perfectly obvious. It is a matter of simple common sense. If my little cousin Abby [u:3bc5d29ec4]walks[/u:3bc5d29ec4] over to the shelf to get my uncle’s Bible because he asked her for it, obviously she only has to do it once; she doesn’t have keep on walking to the shelf numerous times. But if she [u:3bc5d29ec4]walks[/u:3bc5d29ec4] to school in the morning, obviously this is an ongoing, repeated action. We don’t have to slice-and-dice and over-analyze the tense of the verb to figure out what is being said. Thieme wants us to believe this, because he wants us to believe that we can’t understand the Bible without his technical analysis. Another well-known scriptural example would be John 3:15-36, where we are told four times that “whosoever believeth” (present tense) will be saved. The verb is in the present tense, yet it is obvious to any reader that this is a simple choice to believe in Christ, as opposed to a continuing, repetitive action. In fact, if we applied Thieme’s translation technique to this passage, we would have to say that continually believing in Christ is required for salvation.

A popular favorite among Thieme and other pastors like him is to make a big issue out of [i:3bc5d29ec4]agapao [/i:3bc5d29ec4]and [i:3bc5d29ec4]phileo[/i:3bc5d29ec4], which are both translated “love.” They claim that [i:3bc5d29ec4]agapao [/i:3bc5d29ec4]is a virtuous, “impersonal” love, and that [i:3bc5d29ec4]phileo [/i:3bc5d29ec4]is a more emotion-based, “personal” love. But it only takes a little common sense (and the diligence to check things out for yourself) to see what a fallacy this is. [i:3bc5d29ec4]Agapao [/i:3bc5d29ec4]and [i:3bc5d29ec4]phileo [/i:3bc5d29ec4]are nothing more than interchangeable synonyms, as demonstrated by Greek scholars far more qualified than Thieme (more detailed information on this is provided in the books that John and I have published). But as far as our online discussion here is concerned, a few scriptural examples will suffice. In Matthew 22:37 we are commanded to “agapao” the Lord—this can hardly be an “impersonal” love. In John 3:19, John 12:43, 2 Timothy 4:10, and 2 Peter 2:15, we are told that unbelieving men “agapao-ed” [u:3bc5d29ec4]darkness[/u:3bc5d29ec4], the Pharisees “agapao-ed” the [u:3bc5d29ec4]praise of men[/u:3bc5d29ec4], Demas forsook Paul because he “agapao-ed” the [u:3bc5d29ec4]world[/u:3bc5d29ec4], and Balaam “agapao-ed” the [u:3bc5d29ec4]wages of unrighteousness[/u:3bc5d29ec4]. This can hardly be a “virtuous” or “impersonal” love. In Matthew 23:6 the Pharisees “agapao-ed” the best seats at social events, and in Luke 11:43 they “phileo-ed” the best seats in the synagogues. In John 19:26 we are told that John was the disciple whom Jesus “agapao-ed,” and in John 20:2 we are told he was the disciple Jesus “phileo-ed.”

Again, the use of these words is obvious in the context. Anyone, no matter how uneducated, can easily discern between the different uses of words like “love” in different contexts. I could say, “I love Jenny (my fiancée),” “I love the Patriots,” or “I love pizza.” It is obvious that my love for Jenny is different than my love for my favorite food or favorite sports team. The differences between our love for God, our love for family, our love for friends, and love toward our enemies are obvious. It is simple common sense. The writers of Scripture were common men writing to the common people, and they communicated in simple language. They were not intellectual philosophers whose real meaning can only be found in a technical analysis of verb tenses and syntax by a highly educated scholar. They were simple servants of Jesus Christ with a message of the utmost importance, which they would never hide from anyone. All the truths of Scripture (and I mean all of them) are open and understandable to any humble, teachable Christian reading his English Bible, but they are needlessly complicated by Thieme and many Thiemite pastors. This little Greek Game that they play enables them to rewrite the Bible any way they please and tell the people anything they want. And the people are incapable of questioning anything they say, because, after all, they’re just simple, common people who don’t know koine Greek. The Greek Game is just one more way (and a very effective one) of controlling the people and preventing them from forming their own beliefs and convictions.

You also stated that spirituality must be “black and white.” My first challenge to you is simply, show me one scripture in the entire Bible that says this. And secondly, consider how the Bible describes carnality and spirituality, rather than limiting yourself to Thieme’s description. The Apostle Paul admonishes the carnal Corinthians with these words: [i:3bc5d29ec4]“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto [b:3bc5d29ec4]spiritual[/b:3bc5d29ec4], but as unto [b:3bc5d29ec4]carnal[/b:3bc5d29ec4], even as unto [b:3bc5d29ec4]babes [/b:3bc5d29ec4]in Christ. I have fed you with [b:3bc5d29ec4]milk[/b:3bc5d29ec4], and not with [b:3bc5d29ec4]meat[/b:3bc5d29ec4]: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. [b:3bc5d29ec4]For ye are yet carnal: [/b:3bc5d29ec4]for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” [/i:3bc5d29ec4]When Paul called the Corinthians “carnal,” was he saying they weren’t “confessed up”? Did he tell them to “name and cite” their sins to get back in fellowship? Certainly not. He compares being “carnal” with babies who can only handle milk and who are bickering with each other. Their carnality is in their behavior and lifestyle—not because they were “out of fellowship” and needed to “rebound.” (It is certainly strange that Paul never once tells the most carnal church of all to “confess” their sins to “instantly” regain their spirituality.) He also told the Corinthians that [i:3bc5d29ec4]“he that is spiritual judgeth all things,” [/i:3bc5d29ec4]and the Galatians that [i:3bc5d29ec4]“if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness.” [/i:3bc5d29ec4]Paul could hardly make such statements about any believer who was merely ’fessed up. To judge all things and to restore a backsliding brother require wisdom and maturity. There is no such thing as “instant spirituality” ever mentioned in the Bible. And I challenge you to show me one scripture where it is mentioned. To be “filled with the Spirit” in Ephesians 5:18 is simply spiritual growth through God’s Word, like being filled with the Word of Christ in Colossians 3:16. That is why these nearly identical passages (Eph 4-6 and Col 3-4) are all about Christian maturity and virtue, and confessing sins is never even mentioned. This is hardly being “lost in space,” ephesians. This is the simple principle of growing and maturing spiritually, which all Christians generally believe in. Thieme’s presentation of the filling of the Spirit as an “instant and absolute state of the Holy Spirit’s control of the soul” is both unscriptural and illogical. If our soul were under an [i:3bc5d29ec4]absolute [/i:3bc5d29ec4]state of [i:3bc5d29ec4]control [/i:3bc5d29ec4]by the Holy Spirit, then it would be impossible for us to ever sin again.

Stop and think about this seriously, ephesians. Haven’t you ever wondered why this doctrine of “rebound” has to lean so heavily on [u:3bc5d29ec4]one[/u:3bc5d29ec4] verse (1 John 1:9)? A verse that doesn’t even mention the filling of the Spirit or “restoration to fellowship”? Haven’t you ever wondered why there isn’t one verse in the entire Bible that says the filling of the Spirit and restoration to fellowship are the results of confessing sins? Especially if this is such a vital doctrine for the spiritual life of God’s people? Doesn’t the complete absence of a verse that simply states this concept ever trouble you? Isn’t it strange that Thieme has to resort to passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and Hebrews 12 as so-called “synonyms” for rebound, when none of these passages even mention confessing sins, being filled with the Spirit, or being restored to fellowship?

You quoted Luke 15:20, 2 Samuel 12:13, and Psalm 38:18. First, allow me to point out the obvious. [b:3bc5d29ec4](1)[/b:3bc5d29ec4] You have quoted a parable from the Gospels and two Old Testament verses. You do not have a single scripture from the New Testament epistles to support “rebound.” Paul, the revealer of the mystery, in all his letters, never once tells us to confess our sins—not even in the one passage where he tells us to be filled with the Spirit. [b:3bc5d29ec4](2)[/b:3bc5d29ec4] None of the three verses you have quoted mention an instant restoration of spirituality or fellowship.

In Luke 15:20, after a period of disobedience and carnality, the prodigal son acknowledges (or, if you like, confesses) that he has sinned and repents. Obviously, whenever we fall into sin, we need to admit we’ve sinned and repent. This is a very basic and obvious principle of the Christian life that all Christians can agree on. But there is nothing here that implies the constant, mechanical performance of the “rebound” ritual every time we have a wayward thought, in order to “recover fellowship.” (I personally believe that this is a salvation parable directed at the unbelieving Jews in verse 2, but that’s another story for another time.) In 2 Samuel 12:13, David has also been disobeying God for a period of time, until he is confronted by Nathan. When Nathan exposes him, he says, “I have sinned against the Lord.” After hardening his heart for so long, David is now broken and repentant. This is why Nathan tells him the Lord will no longer discipline him in his own person for his sin, and he will not die. The reason Nathan could say this is that David had repented and ceased from his disobedience. If all he had done was “rebound,” without a change of heart, the discipline upon his health and life would not have been removed. There is simply no evidence here for an “instant spirituality” through “rebound.” If the best defense you can up with is a passage like this from the Old Testament, you are grasping at straws, ephesians. The same can be said about Psalm 38:18. When David says he will confess (or declare) his sin, he is not talking about a constant, minute-by-minute ritual of “naming and citing” every sin he can think of in order to “get back in fellowship.” He is expressing his wretched condition and his acknowledgement of his sin and repentance. The deliverance from his anxiety and misery is the result of a [u:3bc5d29ec4]change of heart and repentance[/u:3bc5d29ec4], not a “quick naming of sins.”

Also, your statement that “Thieme had, especially over the last 20 years, gone to great lengths to emphasize the role of spiritual growth in daily Christian living,” is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that Thieme taught spiritual growth (as virtually all Christian churches do) does not change the fact that his doctrine of “rebound” has no Biblical support and that it places a giant legalistic burden on many of God’s people. I would also point out that whatever Thieme’s son has taught since Thieme’s retirement is also irrelevant. We are discussing Thieme’s teachings, not his son’s.

You claim that Thieme is not a “lone wolf crying in the woods,” but in fact he basically is. It is true that many Protestant churches still teach confession of sins as part of the Christian life, but none of them (that I know of) attach the same consequences to this as Thieme does. What makes Thieme so different from the rest of Christianity is the severe consequences he attaches to rejection of his doctrines. How many of the Protestant churches you looked up actually teach that all Christians who don’t constantly confess their sins [u:3bc5d29ec4]have no spiritual life whatsoever[/u:3bc5d29ec4], and [u:3bc5d29ec4]will die miserably under the sin unto death[/u:3bc5d29ec4], and that[i:3bc5d29ec4] [u:3bc5d29ec4]their sins are not forgiven[/u:3bc5d29ec4]? [/i:3bc5d29ec4]

I grew up in a Presbyterian church that taught that confession of sins was a good thing and should be done regularly. But they never accused their differing brethren of having no spiritual life, nor did they ever make dire predictions of them suffering a miserable fate under the sin unto death. And they would be utterly appalled at the teaching that all our sins are not forgiven when we believe in Christ. The forgiveness of all sins through the Cross of Jesus Christ is a foundational truth of the Christian faith. To deny this great Biblical truth is heresy and deserves to be denounced in the strongest language.

In one of your posts, you wrote, “So...I think you can see my point. Thieme just can’t win for anything. All those attacks because he is too liberal and ‘grace-oriented’, then he gets it from the other side by those who think that his teachings on rewards are ‘legalistic’ and analogous to ‘the sword of Damocles’.”

This is a subtle move, ephesians. You are trying to justify Thieme’s legalistic, elitist teachings concerning the [u:3bc5d29ec4]spiritual life [/u:3bc5d29ec4]by appealing to his grace teachings concerning [u:3bc5d29ec4]salvation[/u:3bc5d29ec4]. As I said earlier, I am glad that Thieme taught the finished work of the Cross (although he later compromised this). But this is no excuse for telling God’s people they can’t understand the Bible and scaring them into submission with the fear of the sin unto death and eternal “loser” status if they dare to depart from his doctrinal system. Regardless of what he taught concerning salvation, the destructive consequences of his other teachings should be exposed.

I believe you are sincere in your beliefs, and I would never question your love for the Lord. Unlike Thieme, I believe that other Christians can disagree with my theology and still glorify God and serve Him faithfully. I also believe, however, that you have become too attached to Thieme, and therefore you are not willing to face the reality of the damage he has done. As dedicated as you are to Thieme’s teaching, I hope and pray that you will thoroughly examine these issues before you lead fellow members of the Body of Christ into false teaching. Let us always live by Paul’s warning “not to think of men above that which is written.”

Liberty

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Truthtesty ()
Date: February 14, 2007 11:37AM

G

Truthtesty states: As a matter of fact Thieme's enforcement of rules "was one of the things that won" you over to Theime. You "never looked back"

Genez posted to another forum: "...So? When I heard Thieme's ground rules? I liked them. I agreed with them. If someone did not like it, he always suggested that they find a church where that sort of thing was tolerated. You know something? [b:071c23f61d]That was one of the things that won me over to Theime."[/b:071c23f61d]

Truthtesty states: I know that you like rules when they are in your favor and yet you were misbehaving here (you were hurtful to Happy), when you don't like what your hearing. Isn't that what they call hypocrasy? Tsk Tsk shame shame

Truthtesty states: But your not the only one who like rules. Thieme likes rules too. Thieme likes Thieme's rules. As a matter of fact:

Per Dr. Wall's dissertation: "(Thieme)His first Sunday may have been a preview of what was to come. Thieme met with the Board of Deacons at the close of his first morning service and [b:071c23f61d]demanded their immediate resignation with the threat of his resignation if his demand was not met.[/b:071c23f61d] The dumbfounded deacons acceded to Thieme's demand, and the [b:071c23f61d]pastor became the dominant leader who brooked no challenge to his authority from that time forward.[/b:071c23f61d]

Truthtesty states: Your explanation was that "He asked them. And, they did. And, he has explained at times what the problem was. They were seeped in legalism. "

Thieme was legalistic.

At times in his books Thieme moves somewhat close to a relational definition of fellowship.12 He would be wise to expand this aspect of his teaching,[b:071c23f61d] for teaching the doctrine of fellowship as a technique to enter anabsolute state can produce in some a "mechanical spirituality" and can become a form of "legalism" or "dead orthodoxy.[/b:071c23f61d]

19 A number of personal interviews have disclosed the [b:071c23f61d]negative effects of the Bible class legalism [/b:071c23f61d]on families

[b:071c23f61d]17 Though Thieme denounces legalism, he has produced what could be called "agnostic legalism," i.e. spirituality by knowledge accompanied by forceful demands to attend Bible classes.[/b:071c23f61d]

Fourth, the extreme emphasis on Bible doctrine has led Thieme to hold
Bible class six nights a week. He continually exhorts his people that the process of spiritual maturity demands the intake of Bible doctrine from a pastor-teacher daily. This, [b:071c23f61d]in many cases can result in a warped, legalistic, life style[/b:071c23f61d] that provides for little time for healthy family relations,18 contact with unsaved neighbors, personal study and enrichment in the Scriptures, and a ministry to the needs of others. Instead, it can produce the unbalanced, "puffed-up," mentality condemned by Paul in I Corinthians 8, and in some cases, it can do much harm to the Christian family.19

The truth is that Thieme is a control freak. Nows the time to "look back" and be cautious. Read Dr. Wall's dissertation on Thieme's cult doctrine of right pastor. Here's part of it.

Per Dr. Wall's dissertation: Critique
Thieme's position, as we have noted, is basically a form of Baptist polity: the autonomy of the local church and congregational government with one pastor leading the congregation. Although the major problems in Thieme's ecclesiology stem from an abuse of the biblical role of the elder (which will be discussed in the next section), it should be observed that there are exegetical weaknesses in Baptist polity. Such weaknesses open the way more readily for the errors and abuses of Thieme's doctrine of right pastor. Congregational government (Baptist polity) was a reaction against the hierarchal system of the Roman Church and the state churches of the Reform movement but it retained the Roman mentality toward having a priest in a local church. The Scriptures, however, imply a form of church government similar to that of the synagogue -- a church's being ruled over by, not one, but by a group of elders. The biblical evidence for this view is extensive. First, the very passage that Thieme uses to support his position (Heb. 13:7, 17) refers to the leaders of the Hebrew Christians in the plural. This is consistent in both verses 7 and 17, as well as verse 24. Notice also that there is some question as to whether or not one can identify the people in verse 7 with those in verse 17. Verse 7 uses past tenses in the Greek and the term mnemoneuete means "to remember" or "to keep something in mind" that has occurred in the past. Probably the author has in mind the early leaders of the church who established the church by the teaching of the Word of God. The emphasis of verse 17 concerning the present leaders is that their primary ministry is one of ruling. All elders are to be "apt to teach," and all elders are to rule the flock, but the Hebrew Christians are reminded of the special teaching ministry of the founders of their church. Whether or not this interpretation is accepted, it must be admitted that Hebrews 13 refers to the leaders of
the church in the plural. This is consistent with the rest of Scripture. According to Acts 20:28, compared with Acts 20:17, the elders (presbuteroi) are the same as the overseers or bishops (episkopoi), and this group of men is exhorted by Paul to shepherd or pastor (poimainein) the flock of God. This position of pastoring overseer-elder is referred to in the plural both in verse 17 and in verse 28. When Paul addresses these men at Philippi, he refers to them in the plural (Phil. 1: 1). Only when referred to generically is this position ever referred to in the singular (I Tim. 3:1, 2). 7 Also it should be noted that the term pastor and the term teacher are used to refer to spiritual gifts in the body, not to a ruling office. In Ephesians 4:11, these two terms are linked very closely and probably refer to a combination gift held by certain people in the body of Christ. However, in the context of Ephesians 4 the subject is not church government, but spiritual gifts in the body of Christ (note verses 4, 8 and 16). It is conceivable that a church could have a number of gifted pastor-teachers, as well as gifted pastors and gifted teachers, and that these would minister both as authoritative elders (dependent upon their spiritual maturity) and as non-authoritative members of the body in person-toperson relations. [u:071c23f61d][b:071c23f61d]One thing is clear, the Scriptures do not single out one person with a particular gift and set him over a local body as an absolute ruler.[/b:071c23f61d][/u:071c23f61d] One other observation concerning autocratic pastor rule is in order.
Government, whether it is church or state, is made up of people, and people are sinners by nature. The structures which God establishes recognize this truth. A system of checks and balances is necessary to control the sin nature even in a Christian, since no Christian always operates on the basis of a spiritual mentality all the time. A plurality of elders with opportunity for congregational participation in major decisions lends itself more readily to the control of the sin nature.
[b:071c23f61d]Thieme's interpretation fails to recognize any leadership plurality, and thus opens the way for a pastoral abuse of power.[/b:071c23f61d]



Truthtesty

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: GeneZ ()
Date: February 14, 2007 12:00PM

Quote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty states: Flaming? me no, but it looks like you should know better. It looks like as long as things are going your way you have no problems with rules. You only have problems with rules when your not getting what you want. Oh an how you "look forward to emplemenation" of rules.

I do not know what that is from. Since you do not give the forum and post? I have no idea. Do a search. There is more than one GeneZ, out there. If you refuse to give a link? I have no idea what that's about. I have no idea if it has not been edited, either.

Quote

Genez posted to another forum:
GeneZ 10-25-2004 04:03 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Matt14
The new rules were instituted to make this a place where people can discuss the Bible without interruption from silly, off-topic distractions. Wouldn't that be nice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to see that. [b:d0ef46bb06]This way we do not have to wear a gun and a sword. [/b:d0ef46bb06]I figured, "when in Rome, do as the Romans" when I got here. Nice to see that certain things will no longer be tolerated.

I think everyone should take a good look at the new rules. Certain negative forces lurking here (which tempted me not to waste my time here) appear to[b:d0ef46bb06]no longer be tolerated by the new rules. Looking forward to implementation. [/b:d0ef46bb06]

The reason we should all look at the new rules is because when we were without them, many here developed certain tactics in order to confront negativity that was not being restrained at that time. Certain ways must now be dropped that were ignored in the past.

Rule No. 5 - No Promotion of Other Religions

[b:d0ef46bb06]5) You will not post any messages, links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Christianity. This would include no promotion of cults or other doctrines considered heretical. Debate of these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This is a forum for the discussion of the Bible, as the name suggests. If you cannot abide by this, please do not use our site. Non-believers who are not genuinely trying to learn and discuss the Bible must restrict their posts and comments to the Critic’s Agora forum. Any posts violating this are subject to removal. If you are a non-believer and your purpose is to attack the Bible, perhaps another message board would be your best best. However, if you have serious critical questions and are actually interested in hearing answers, post them in the Critic's Agora. The admin and moderators will make the determination as to whether a user is asking "learning questions" or merely attacking Christianity.[/b:d0ef46bb06]

Grace and peace (with the rules)..... genez


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color:d0ef46bb06]

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: GeneZ ()
Date: February 14, 2007 12:06PM

Quote
Truthtesty
G

Truthtesty states: As a matter of fact Thieme's enforcement of rules "was one of the things that won" you over to Theime. You "never looked back"

What rules in particular were they? [i:f6ab2d90fe]Rules,[/i:f6ab2d90fe] is very generic term.

Quote

Genez posted to another forum: "...So? When I heard Thieme's ground rules? I liked them. I agreed with them. If someone did not like it, he always suggested that they find a church where that sort of thing was tolerated. You know something? [b:f6ab2d90fe]That was one of the things that won me over to Theime."[/b:f6ab2d90fe]

What were those rules? LOL! You make it sound like [i:f6ab2d90fe]rules[/i:f6ab2d90fe] is a dirty word.

And? Unless you give links? You have no way to verify that you have not edited my words.

Until you give a link? I will sit still.

This is the first time I ever saw anyone have the audacity not to supply the source they claim to be using. It would be thrown out of any court of law, what you just did. Not naming the source, so accuracy can be verified? Silly to argue against what is not verifiable...



In Christ, GeneZ

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Truthtesty ()
Date: February 14, 2007 12:27PM

What Gene doesn't realize is that even extremely intelligent people can be involved in a cult and not even know it. Apparently, Stan was a "hoodwinked" cult follower of Thieme as well.

per Genez's statement on another forum: "It was Professor Stan Ashby. Professor of Ancient Languages, Harvard (retired). He kept pointing me to Thieme after I mentioned some messages I had just heard by Professor Ashby on a tape series. [b:2f559b3a78]He kept telling me that he got most of it from Thieme"[/b:2f559b3a78]

Truthtesty states: Not the other way around? Interesting. So Stan didn't actually do the linguistic work, he got it from Thieme.

Truthtesty

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: HappyAndFree ()
Date: February 14, 2007 12:41PM

Truthtesty,

I agree that Thieme is legalistic. When I first discussed RBT ministry with my Christian therapist, years ago, he commented that it sounded very "legalistic". Having been raised in that ministry, where I'd heard Thieme criticize "legalistic" ministries all my life, I was really surprised to hear my therapist describe Thieme's ministry as such.

He pointed out things I had mentioned and showed me how that was legalism. Wow. That was quite a revelation.

I guess that's why I feel so free now. No more legalism.

You shouldn't worry too much about folks like GeneZ. I've been there too. I really bought into it, just like him. But like I said in an earlier post, I believe God holds true to His promise, "Seek and you will find". I really wanted to know God. And God has been very faithful to reveal himself to me. Very little of that revelation came under Thieme's ministry, however. But in all fairness, some did.

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: GeneZ ()
Date: February 14, 2007 02:15PM

Quote
Truthtesty
What Gene doesn't realize is that even extremely intelligent people can be involved in a cult and not even know it. Apparently, Stan was a "hoodwinked" cult follower of Thieme as well.

This is how much you know. Nothing.

Stan Ashby was not a follower of RB Thieme. He knew about RB Thieme's teachings. He even openly disagreed with some things RBT taught. So do, I.

You think anyone who appreciates RBT must be a follower?

Another pastor I knew highly respected Thieme for his skill in exegesis. Yet? He disagreed with Thieme on several points. You fail to see that Thieme had the respect of qualified men. That does not mean they were followers!

Quote

per Genez's statement on another forum: "It was Professor Stan Ashby. Professor of Ancient Languages, Harvard (retired). He kept pointing me to Thieme after I mentioned some messages I had just heard by Professor Ashby on a tape series. [b:855d83700f]He kept telling me that he got most of it from Thieme"[/b:855d83700f]

You are not telling all the truth, and are almost rewriting my words by the context you cut and pasted. Stan Ashby did not keep pointing me to RBT! He kept pointing me to Thieme [b:855d83700f]during one one conversation[/b:855d83700f]. He recommended him to me once at a church service. I was raving about a taped message I heard by Stan Ashby, and he kept refusing to take credit for it. That's the detail you fail to see. He kept saying that he got the idea from Thieme.

Quote

Truthtesty states: Not the other way around? Interesting. So Stan didn't actually do the linguistic work, he got it from Thieme.

Stan Ashby got [b:855d83700f]the concept [/b:855d83700f]from Thieme. And, he did do his own work. He taught things that Thieme did not cover. He used to teach Greek at a Bible college. he also knew Hebrew and other ancient languages. You think one can qualify to teach Ancient Languages at Harvard? By simply reading lexicons?

Best thing I can do? Is just let you be yourself. It wins my argument every time. For, it reveals how you pressume way too much, and are over confident in how you bash me. You do the exact same thing with Thieme. Your constant inaccuracies by distorting intentions expose you.

And, once again, you failed to provide links so others can verify you have not edited my words. I believe you have.

In Christ, GeneZ

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 12 of 203


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.