Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: May 01, 2008 09:29AM
Ps,
Another concept Thieme should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer
Systematic Theology
III. The Divine Remedy for Imputed Sin [Vol. 2, Page 313]
1. The Death of Christ. The careful student of doctrine, when examining the Scriptures, soon becomes aware of the imperative need of discriminating between physical death and spiritual death, and in no aspect of this great theme is the human mind more impotent than when considering the death of Christ in the light of these distinctions. There could be no doubt about Christ’s physical death, even though He, in His humanity, being unfallen, was in no way subject to death; nor was He, in His death, to see corruption (Ps. 16:10); nor was a bone of His body to be broken (John 19:36). On the other hand, Christ’s death was a complete judgment of the sin nature for all who are regenerated, and He, as substitute, bore a condemnation which no mortal can comprehend, which penalty entered far into the realms of spiritual death—separation from God (cf. Matt. 27:46). In His death, He shrank back, not from physical pain, nor from the experience of quitting the physical body, but, when contemplating the place of a sin bearer and the anticipation of being made sin for us, He pleaded that the cup might pass. The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others; yet, while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacrifice which He provided, it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other.
Yet what did Thieme do? Thieme disassociated physical death and spiritual death.
Truthtesty
Another concept Thieme should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer
Systematic Theology
III. The Divine Remedy for Imputed Sin [Vol. 2, Page 313]
1. The Death of Christ. The careful student of doctrine, when examining the Scriptures, soon becomes aware of the imperative need of discriminating between physical death and spiritual death, and in no aspect of this great theme is the human mind more impotent than when considering the death of Christ in the light of these distinctions. There could be no doubt about Christ’s physical death, even though He, in His humanity, being unfallen, was in no way subject to death; nor was He, in His death, to see corruption (Ps. 16:10); nor was a bone of His body to be broken (John 19:36). On the other hand, Christ’s death was a complete judgment of the sin nature for all who are regenerated, and He, as substitute, bore a condemnation which no mortal can comprehend, which penalty entered far into the realms of spiritual death—separation from God (cf. Matt. 27:46). In His death, He shrank back, not from physical pain, nor from the experience of quitting the physical body, but, when contemplating the place of a sin bearer and the anticipation of being made sin for us, He pleaded that the cup might pass. The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others; yet, while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacrifice which He provided, it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other.
Yet what did Thieme do? Thieme disassociated physical death and spiritual death.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: May 01, 2008 11:10AM
Ps quote: So keep searching the scriptures and and listening to the right Pastor to teach you the Word of God so that when you stand before the Bema Seat/Evaluation Throne of Christ your Pastor teacher can give a good account for you and so that you will not be ashammed and your works recieve Gold, silver, precious stone (Analogy for Eternal Rewards). 1Cor 3:11-18.
Truthtesty:
Perhaps you should read what Chafer originally said:
III. The Riches of Divine Grace (8) [Vol. 3, Page 248]
Over against this, the Apostle writes (1 Cor. 3:9–15) of the superstructure which is built upon the rock, which superstructure is to be tested by fire. Reference is thus made, not to salvation, but to the works in which the Christian engages. It is not character building, but Christian service. There are, again, two general classes of superstructure being built upon Christ the Rock, and these are likened to gold, silver, and precious stones, on the one hand, and to wood, hay, and stubble, on the other hand. As gold and silver are refined by fire, and wood, hay, and stubble are consumed by fire, so the judgment of Christian service is likened to fire in which the gold and silver will stand the test and receive a reward, while that which corresponds to wood, hay, and stubble will suffer loss. It is declared, however, that the believer who suffers loss in respect to his reward for service will himself be saved, though passing through that fire which destroys his unworthy service.
Also, there is no "Right Pastor". This is not a US military battalion. There is no "Pastor teacher" who can give a good account for you to the commanding general.
I recommend you read all the critiques of this dissertation. The following is part of Dr. Wall's critique on Thieme's false doctrine of "Right pastor".
Per Dr. Wall's dissertation: [www.texaswalls.org]
Second, he confuses faith in biblical truth with a faith in a particular teacher (i.e. one's right pastor). At no time does Scripture exhort the believer to single out one particular teacher as his final doctrinal authority. On the contrary,
there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ. Thieme's right pastor doctrine could very well be called the "Diotrophes
doctrine."
Third, he gives a false impression as to the believer's personal responsibility relative to testing the reliability of teachers and relative to his own personal study. For Thieme, once one joins a church fellowship, he is to
unquestioningly respond to the pastor's authoritative teaching and rely on this pastor to do his study for him. This contradicts the biblical example of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) and the clear exhortations to test the doctrine of teachers (I Cor. 12:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3; Gal. 1: 6-1 0). It also contradicts the intent of the gift of pastor-teacher. According to Ephesians 4, it along with the gift of evangelist and the temporary gifts of apostle and prophet were primarily given to the church to prepare or equip the saints to minister and edify the body of Christ.
It would seem strange indeed to think of one's being equipped to minister as a self-sustaining, contributing unit in the body of Christ, and yet unable to be selfsustaining in his own personal study of Scripture.
Also,
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer - Systematic Theology Vol. 4, Page 151, 152
5. The Church and Her Order. In his Bible Correspondence Course, Dr. C. I. Scofield writes thus at length of the functions of the organized church:
The story of the development of the local church is gathered by inference from the Acts and Epistles. So gathered, two errors of men concerning church order are at once refuted. The first is the notion that the apostolic local churches were modeled in organization upon the synagogue. Doubtless resemblances may be traced, as the synagogue itself has shadowy resemblances to things in ancient Israel. But the synagogue organization was perfectly familiar to the church at Jerusalem, and yet that church consisted of thousands of believers before there was even the most rudimentary organization; when, at last, the work of administering the charity of the church became a burden beyond reason to the apostles, they based the direction to “choose seven men of good report,” etc., not upon synagogue analogy, but upon the reason of the matter (Acts 6:1–4). The second error is that the Acts and Epistles contain such a doctrine concerning church organization as constitutes a binding rule, a new and rigid Leviticus. One body of believers, for example, erect the statement that the disciples at Troas came together on the first day of the week to break bread, into a law that all disciples everywhere should meet every Lord’s day for that purpose. Surely a broad generalization from one instance! What seems clear from a consideration of all the passages is that gradually the normal local church organization included elders and deacons. “Bishops” and elders seem identical (Titus 1:5; cf. vs. 7). It should be added that both the eldership and diaconate in the apostolic churches were plural. There is no instance of one elder in a local church. The functions of the elders were (1) to rule (1 Tim. 3:4, 5; 5:17); (2) to guard the body of revealed truth from perversion and error (Titus 1:9); (3) to “oversee” the church as a shepherd his flock (Acts 20:28, where “feed” is literally to “tend as a shepherd”; John 21:16; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2). Elders were (1) ordained (Greek, cheirotoneo, which may mean either “to create or appoint by vote,” or “to elect, appoint, create,” Thayer) by the apostles (Acts 14:23); or (2) they were so “ordained” by men appointed by an apostle (Titus 1:5); or (3) were made overseers by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28), an expression which is not explained unless that explanation is in Peter’s phrase (1 Pet. 5:2), “Taking the oversight thereof”; in which case it might mean that the Ephesian elders were so evidently in possession of the gift of government (1 Cor. 12:28), and of the qualifications afterward defined in the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus, that without note or apostolical appointment they “took” the oversight, etc. This seems far-fetched as interpretation, and is open to the objection that such a practice would fill the eldership with the most pushing, conceited, and self-seeking persons in the churches. The deacons seem to have been concerned with the offices of comfort and charity rather than with those of oversight, and to have been chosen by the people (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Tim. 3:8–13). It should be added that appointment to office in the apostolic church was with the laying on of the hands of the apostles (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 2 Tim. 1:6) or of the presbytery or eldership (1 Tim. 4:14). But a distinction of first importance to a correct understanding of the New Testament local church is that between office and ministry. Office was by appointment, ministry was by gift of the Spirit. Philip, one of the seven first deacons of the church in Jerusalem, is a sufficient illustration of this distinction. By office he was a deacon; by gift, an evangelist (Acts 6:5; 21:8). No doubt the appointment to office was, so long as the churches were spiritual, the recognition of spiritual gifts and graces in the men appointed, but nothing is more outstanding than that in the New Testament churches ministry was absolutely free. The abiding ministry gifts are enumerated in Ephesians 4:11: “And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” These, it should be observed, are not gifts of the Spirit to men, as in 1 Corinthians 12, but gifts of Spirit-gifted men to the church. They belong to the whole “church which is his body.” No instance is found of the ordination of a prophet, or of an evangelist, or of a pastor and teacher “over” any local church, though local churches were ministered to by them (Acts 11:19–28), and often for years continuously. The laying on of hands was either for the impartation of spiritual gift (2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 4:14), or for setting apart to office (Acts 6:6). It should also be noted that, as ministry was by the Spirit and was free, so the ordering of place, time, and method in service was kept under the free authority of the Spirit (Acts 13:1–4; 16:6–10). It remains to add that the New Testament knows nothing of a priesthood other than the priesthood of all believers under the High-priesthood of Christ; nothing of a “clergy” as forming a body distinct from the “laity”; nor anything of certain men set apart to baptize and to administer the Lord’s supper, though doubtless it would be within New Testament liberty to designate one or more for these purposes.—Op. cit., pp. 428–30
Truthtesty
Truthtesty:
Perhaps you should read what Chafer originally said:
III. The Riches of Divine Grace (8) [Vol. 3, Page 248]
Over against this, the Apostle writes (1 Cor. 3:9–15) of the superstructure which is built upon the rock, which superstructure is to be tested by fire. Reference is thus made, not to salvation, but to the works in which the Christian engages. It is not character building, but Christian service. There are, again, two general classes of superstructure being built upon Christ the Rock, and these are likened to gold, silver, and precious stones, on the one hand, and to wood, hay, and stubble, on the other hand. As gold and silver are refined by fire, and wood, hay, and stubble are consumed by fire, so the judgment of Christian service is likened to fire in which the gold and silver will stand the test and receive a reward, while that which corresponds to wood, hay, and stubble will suffer loss. It is declared, however, that the believer who suffers loss in respect to his reward for service will himself be saved, though passing through that fire which destroys his unworthy service.
Also, there is no "Right Pastor". This is not a US military battalion. There is no "Pastor teacher" who can give a good account for you to the commanding general.
I recommend you read all the critiques of this dissertation. The following is part of Dr. Wall's critique on Thieme's false doctrine of "Right pastor".
Per Dr. Wall's dissertation: [www.texaswalls.org]
Second, he confuses faith in biblical truth with a faith in a particular teacher (i.e. one's right pastor). At no time does Scripture exhort the believer to single out one particular teacher as his final doctrinal authority. On the contrary,
there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ. Thieme's right pastor doctrine could very well be called the "Diotrophes
doctrine."
Third, he gives a false impression as to the believer's personal responsibility relative to testing the reliability of teachers and relative to his own personal study. For Thieme, once one joins a church fellowship, he is to
unquestioningly respond to the pastor's authoritative teaching and rely on this pastor to do his study for him. This contradicts the biblical example of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) and the clear exhortations to test the doctrine of teachers (I Cor. 12:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3; Gal. 1: 6-1 0). It also contradicts the intent of the gift of pastor-teacher. According to Ephesians 4, it along with the gift of evangelist and the temporary gifts of apostle and prophet were primarily given to the church to prepare or equip the saints to minister and edify the body of Christ.
It would seem strange indeed to think of one's being equipped to minister as a self-sustaining, contributing unit in the body of Christ, and yet unable to be selfsustaining in his own personal study of Scripture.
Also,
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer - Systematic Theology Vol. 4, Page 151, 152
5. The Church and Her Order. In his Bible Correspondence Course, Dr. C. I. Scofield writes thus at length of the functions of the organized church:
The story of the development of the local church is gathered by inference from the Acts and Epistles. So gathered, two errors of men concerning church order are at once refuted. The first is the notion that the apostolic local churches were modeled in organization upon the synagogue. Doubtless resemblances may be traced, as the synagogue itself has shadowy resemblances to things in ancient Israel. But the synagogue organization was perfectly familiar to the church at Jerusalem, and yet that church consisted of thousands of believers before there was even the most rudimentary organization; when, at last, the work of administering the charity of the church became a burden beyond reason to the apostles, they based the direction to “choose seven men of good report,” etc., not upon synagogue analogy, but upon the reason of the matter (Acts 6:1–4). The second error is that the Acts and Epistles contain such a doctrine concerning church organization as constitutes a binding rule, a new and rigid Leviticus. One body of believers, for example, erect the statement that the disciples at Troas came together on the first day of the week to break bread, into a law that all disciples everywhere should meet every Lord’s day for that purpose. Surely a broad generalization from one instance! What seems clear from a consideration of all the passages is that gradually the normal local church organization included elders and deacons. “Bishops” and elders seem identical (Titus 1:5; cf. vs. 7). It should be added that both the eldership and diaconate in the apostolic churches were plural. There is no instance of one elder in a local church. The functions of the elders were (1) to rule (1 Tim. 3:4, 5; 5:17); (2) to guard the body of revealed truth from perversion and error (Titus 1:9); (3) to “oversee” the church as a shepherd his flock (Acts 20:28, where “feed” is literally to “tend as a shepherd”; John 21:16; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2). Elders were (1) ordained (Greek, cheirotoneo, which may mean either “to create or appoint by vote,” or “to elect, appoint, create,” Thayer) by the apostles (Acts 14:23); or (2) they were so “ordained” by men appointed by an apostle (Titus 1:5); or (3) were made overseers by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28), an expression which is not explained unless that explanation is in Peter’s phrase (1 Pet. 5:2), “Taking the oversight thereof”; in which case it might mean that the Ephesian elders were so evidently in possession of the gift of government (1 Cor. 12:28), and of the qualifications afterward defined in the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus, that without note or apostolical appointment they “took” the oversight, etc. This seems far-fetched as interpretation, and is open to the objection that such a practice would fill the eldership with the most pushing, conceited, and self-seeking persons in the churches. The deacons seem to have been concerned with the offices of comfort and charity rather than with those of oversight, and to have been chosen by the people (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Tim. 3:8–13). It should be added that appointment to office in the apostolic church was with the laying on of the hands of the apostles (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 2 Tim. 1:6) or of the presbytery or eldership (1 Tim. 4:14). But a distinction of first importance to a correct understanding of the New Testament local church is that between office and ministry. Office was by appointment, ministry was by gift of the Spirit. Philip, one of the seven first deacons of the church in Jerusalem, is a sufficient illustration of this distinction. By office he was a deacon; by gift, an evangelist (Acts 6:5; 21:8). No doubt the appointment to office was, so long as the churches were spiritual, the recognition of spiritual gifts and graces in the men appointed, but nothing is more outstanding than that in the New Testament churches ministry was absolutely free. The abiding ministry gifts are enumerated in Ephesians 4:11: “And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” These, it should be observed, are not gifts of the Spirit to men, as in 1 Corinthians 12, but gifts of Spirit-gifted men to the church. They belong to the whole “church which is his body.” No instance is found of the ordination of a prophet, or of an evangelist, or of a pastor and teacher “over” any local church, though local churches were ministered to by them (Acts 11:19–28), and often for years continuously. The laying on of hands was either for the impartation of spiritual gift (2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 4:14), or for setting apart to office (Acts 6:6). It should also be noted that, as ministry was by the Spirit and was free, so the ordering of place, time, and method in service was kept under the free authority of the Spirit (Acts 13:1–4; 16:6–10). It remains to add that the New Testament knows nothing of a priesthood other than the priesthood of all believers under the High-priesthood of Christ; nothing of a “clergy” as forming a body distinct from the “laity”; nor anything of certain men set apart to baptize and to administer the Lord’s supper, though doubtless it would be within New Testament liberty to designate one or more for these purposes.—Op. cit., pp. 428–30
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
PastorThiemeisGreat2me
()
Date: May 02, 2008 08:29AM
Thanks TT. Concerninng the statements below:
(As gold and silver are refined by fire, and wood, hay, and stubble are consumed by fire, so the judgment of Christian service is likened to fire in which the gold and silver will stand the test and receive a reward, while that which corresponds to wood, hay, and stubble will suffer loss. It is declared, however, that the believer who suffers loss in respect to his reward for service will himself be saved, though passing through that fire which destroys his unworthy service. )
I would have to totally agree and that statement and it is from my own personal study and evaluation of the scriptures. Although Pastor Thieme had a study of specific rewards and crowns, I agree with what he taught about them as well.
I'll probably have some wood myself burning for as a babe in Christ I've done works without being filled with the Spirit.
(On the contrary,
there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ. Thieme's right pastor doctrine could very well be called the "Diotrophes
doctrine.")
I would have to say about this statement that some things seem like they were not taken into consideration in that evaluation with reguards to the Church athority and the function of the pre-canon period of the Church age and the post-canon functions of the Church age athorities.
The pre-canon top Athorities of Apostles could teach Pastors like Timothy and Titus and their congregations in the Roman Empire like Ephesis and Corinth. Also Pastors could go to other congregations and teach as Titus helped Timothy. The top athorities in the post-canon period of the Church age is the Pastor-teacher and he has authority over his own congregation and not over several, referring to those under the athority of another Pastor. He has certain duties with reguards to ordination of those with the PT gift but those with the gift have to get trained and develop their own ministry and congregatios.
There is a very important reason to have one Pastor per congregation, that is, to take his congregaton to spiritual maturity by feeding his flock. To follow the Pastor as he follows the Lord keeps things decent and in order minus the confusion of different guidance from more than one sheperd. Deacons and other leaders have there function but the Pastor is the head of the flock to study and teach. Do animal flocks of sheep have more than one Lead shepherd? Although Christ is the chief sheperd of all the whole Body of Christ he has given that gift for the equiping of the believers. It's like a wife having only one husband and not 2, 3 or 4 men she would have to respond to on the same day. That is confusion for her. King David showed that having one wife is less stressful. The shortest distance between two points for a new growing believer = Point A = babe in Christ, point B = The Pastor-teacher growing spiritually and giuding Him to spiritual maturity. Since this is the post-canon period with no Apostles. Who choses the right Pastor for the believer? That is a choice for the believer to decide upon. Once he does find that person to feed him he can execellerate his spiritual growth with some what of an ease and not have to be confussed with contridictions of Biblical doctrines which would occur with having so many men to learn BD from like in a Bible colleges. That might be good for a semmenary student who has the gift of PT but for the babes in Christ it will be confussing and counter productive in my opinion. Who reaches spiritual maturity in Bible Colleges anyway? Do they teach Greek or correct the errors in the KJV version.
(Also, there is no "Right Pastor". This is not a US military battalion. There is no "Pastor teacher" who can give a good account for you to the commanding general.)
Hebrews 13:17.
(For Thieme, once one joins a church fellowship, he is to
unquestioningly respond to the pastor's authoritative teaching and rely on this pastor to do his study for him. )
1Peter5:1-6.
We who like Pastor Thiemes teachings of ICE study are not just puppy dogs following after it's master and we do no searching the scriptures on our own. God know each one's heart, right?
(The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others; yet, while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacrifice which He provided, it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other. )
(Yet what did Thieme do? Thieme disassociated physical death and spiritual death.)
Christ died physically because he died spiritually first which resolved all personal sins and satisfied God's justice. His salvation work was completed on earth but not in heaven where he had to take those souls in paradise upto Heaven with him so he could then raise from the dead. Him dying physically does not mean I will never die physically but for the rapture generation it will. Him dying physically does not have the same result as of him dying spiritually in my opinion from studying.
"Immediadelly following Christ's physical death several miracles took place. The veil of the temple which hung between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was an elaborately woven fabric of seventy-two twisted wrap cords, twenty threads each EX26:33. Sixty
feetlong and thirty feet wide and impossible to tear with human hands, But the moment Christ dismissed his spirit, Matt 26:51a. God himself split the veil of the Temple to indicate that the barrier between man and God was removed by the work of Christ on the Cross. We know from the study of the Tabernacle as well as from the book of Hebrews that the veil represented Christ body, His Humanity. Heb1:19-20.
The rending of the veil represented the two deaths, spiritual and physical of the Lord Jesus Christ which makes it possible for you and all believers to have a rtelationship with God in time and for all eternity". From "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" by RBT 4th edition 2004.
Thanks and Have a Blessed day TT.
(As gold and silver are refined by fire, and wood, hay, and stubble are consumed by fire, so the judgment of Christian service is likened to fire in which the gold and silver will stand the test and receive a reward, while that which corresponds to wood, hay, and stubble will suffer loss. It is declared, however, that the believer who suffers loss in respect to his reward for service will himself be saved, though passing through that fire which destroys his unworthy service. )
I would have to totally agree and that statement and it is from my own personal study and evaluation of the scriptures. Although Pastor Thieme had a study of specific rewards and crowns, I agree with what he taught about them as well.
I'll probably have some wood myself burning for as a babe in Christ I've done works without being filled with the Spirit.
(On the contrary,
there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ. Thieme's right pastor doctrine could very well be called the "Diotrophes
doctrine.")
I would have to say about this statement that some things seem like they were not taken into consideration in that evaluation with reguards to the Church athority and the function of the pre-canon period of the Church age and the post-canon functions of the Church age athorities.
The pre-canon top Athorities of Apostles could teach Pastors like Timothy and Titus and their congregations in the Roman Empire like Ephesis and Corinth. Also Pastors could go to other congregations and teach as Titus helped Timothy. The top athorities in the post-canon period of the Church age is the Pastor-teacher and he has authority over his own congregation and not over several, referring to those under the athority of another Pastor. He has certain duties with reguards to ordination of those with the PT gift but those with the gift have to get trained and develop their own ministry and congregatios.
There is a very important reason to have one Pastor per congregation, that is, to take his congregaton to spiritual maturity by feeding his flock. To follow the Pastor as he follows the Lord keeps things decent and in order minus the confusion of different guidance from more than one sheperd. Deacons and other leaders have there function but the Pastor is the head of the flock to study and teach. Do animal flocks of sheep have more than one Lead shepherd? Although Christ is the chief sheperd of all the whole Body of Christ he has given that gift for the equiping of the believers. It's like a wife having only one husband and not 2, 3 or 4 men she would have to respond to on the same day. That is confusion for her. King David showed that having one wife is less stressful. The shortest distance between two points for a new growing believer = Point A = babe in Christ, point B = The Pastor-teacher growing spiritually and giuding Him to spiritual maturity. Since this is the post-canon period with no Apostles. Who choses the right Pastor for the believer? That is a choice for the believer to decide upon. Once he does find that person to feed him he can execellerate his spiritual growth with some what of an ease and not have to be confussed with contridictions of Biblical doctrines which would occur with having so many men to learn BD from like in a Bible colleges. That might be good for a semmenary student who has the gift of PT but for the babes in Christ it will be confussing and counter productive in my opinion. Who reaches spiritual maturity in Bible Colleges anyway? Do they teach Greek or correct the errors in the KJV version.
(Also, there is no "Right Pastor". This is not a US military battalion. There is no "Pastor teacher" who can give a good account for you to the commanding general.)
Hebrews 13:17.
(For Thieme, once one joins a church fellowship, he is to
unquestioningly respond to the pastor's authoritative teaching and rely on this pastor to do his study for him. )
1Peter5:1-6.
We who like Pastor Thiemes teachings of ICE study are not just puppy dogs following after it's master and we do no searching the scriptures on our own. God know each one's heart, right?
(The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others; yet, while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacrifice which He provided, it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other. )
(Yet what did Thieme do? Thieme disassociated physical death and spiritual death.)
Christ died physically because he died spiritually first which resolved all personal sins and satisfied God's justice. His salvation work was completed on earth but not in heaven where he had to take those souls in paradise upto Heaven with him so he could then raise from the dead. Him dying physically does not mean I will never die physically but for the rapture generation it will. Him dying physically does not have the same result as of him dying spiritually in my opinion from studying.
"Immediadelly following Christ's physical death several miracles took place. The veil of the temple which hung between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was an elaborately woven fabric of seventy-two twisted wrap cords, twenty threads each EX26:33. Sixty
feetlong and thirty feet wide and impossible to tear with human hands, But the moment Christ dismissed his spirit, Matt 26:51a. God himself split the veil of the Temple to indicate that the barrier between man and God was removed by the work of Christ on the Cross. We know from the study of the Tabernacle as well as from the book of Hebrews that the veil represented Christ body, His Humanity. Heb1:19-20.
The rending of the veil represented the two deaths, spiritual and physical of the Lord Jesus Christ which makes it possible for you and all believers to have a rtelationship with God in time and for all eternity". From "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" by RBT 4th edition 2004.
Thanks and Have a Blessed day TT.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: May 02, 2008 08:51AM
Ps quote: You missed my whole point as well. My point is, The perfect God-man who knew no sin was made to be sin for us. The perfect person with no old sin nature and never sinned personally was the only one who could die spiritually on the cross for the sins of the world. The sins of mankind had to be atoned for and was, by the spiritual death of Christ on the cross.
Truthtesty:
You missed my point as well. If spiritual death of a perfect theantropic person was all that was necessary then the Angel of Jehovah could have spiritually died for our sins. Satan was an angel, proof therefore an angel can sin. All that is necessary for a "sin nature" is a choice to disobey God. If all that was necessary was spiritual death then the perfect "angel side" of the theantropic Angel of Jehovah could have been "made sin" for us, just as the "human side" of the theantropic Jesus was "made sin" for us. Therefore the God-angel could have been made sin for us. The God-angel with no old sin nature and never sinned personally. Therefore Flesh and Blood were an obvious requirement for salvation, not just spiritual death alone.
Ps quote: His physical Blood remained in his body until after he was physically dead and had died spiritually before dying physically, to show all that his blood in his body and his physical death had nothing to do with the atonement of sins but his spiritual death did.
There was some Blood left in Jesus' body, but it was definetly shed according to God's process(s). Almost everyone's blood remains in thier body after they die. You have no proof enough Blood was in Jesus' body to sustain life. You have no proof that Jesus died spiritually before dying physically or that there was even an actual separation of the 2 aspects of death. Spiritual death and physical death are MAN'S LIMITED LABELS and best thought of as ASPECTS or PROCESSES of Christ total death.
As I said before:
Remember Jesus was also a Prophet.
Luke 24:19 "And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.
So here is another aspect Thieme should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary:
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Vol I pg 378
"With prophetic vision He said, even before His death, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4), and when He reached the moment of death He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30)"
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Vol. III 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."
So therefore "it is finished" does not refer to spiritual death only.
Also the extreme amount of blood loss is attributed to scourging (the severe and violent lashings with the Roman whip or flagellum.)
The literal Blood of Christ was shed for you and all mankind and was a part of the work of Jesus. Despite Thieme's politically motivated attempts of "junk science" and "junk theology" to deny the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus.
Truthtesty
Truthtesty:
You missed my point as well. If spiritual death of a perfect theantropic person was all that was necessary then the Angel of Jehovah could have spiritually died for our sins. Satan was an angel, proof therefore an angel can sin. All that is necessary for a "sin nature" is a choice to disobey God. If all that was necessary was spiritual death then the perfect "angel side" of the theantropic Angel of Jehovah could have been "made sin" for us, just as the "human side" of the theantropic Jesus was "made sin" for us. Therefore the God-angel could have been made sin for us. The God-angel with no old sin nature and never sinned personally. Therefore Flesh and Blood were an obvious requirement for salvation, not just spiritual death alone.
Ps quote: His physical Blood remained in his body until after he was physically dead and had died spiritually before dying physically, to show all that his blood in his body and his physical death had nothing to do with the atonement of sins but his spiritual death did.
There was some Blood left in Jesus' body, but it was definetly shed according to God's process(s). Almost everyone's blood remains in thier body after they die. You have no proof enough Blood was in Jesus' body to sustain life. You have no proof that Jesus died spiritually before dying physically or that there was even an actual separation of the 2 aspects of death. Spiritual death and physical death are MAN'S LIMITED LABELS and best thought of as ASPECTS or PROCESSES of Christ total death.
As I said before:
Remember Jesus was also a Prophet.
Luke 24:19 "And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.
So here is another aspect Thieme should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary:
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Vol I pg 378
"With prophetic vision He said, even before His death, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4), and when He reached the moment of death He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30)"
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Vol. III 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."
So therefore "it is finished" does not refer to spiritual death only.
Also the extreme amount of blood loss is attributed to scourging (the severe and violent lashings with the Roman whip or flagellum.)
The literal Blood of Christ was shed for you and all mankind and was a part of the work of Jesus. Despite Thieme's politically motivated attempts of "junk science" and "junk theology" to deny the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: May 02, 2008 09:43AM
To Ps and the Forum:
Contrary to Thieme's claim that Dallas Theological Seminary changed it's teachings from Dr. Chafer's time, these words are identical from the original (Chafer) 1924 Doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary to the present Doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary. To "test all things" order copies of all Doctrinal statements from the Turpin Library, as I did.
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]
Truthtesty
Contrary to Thieme's claim that Dallas Theological Seminary changed it's teachings from Dr. Chafer's time, these words are identical from the original (Chafer) 1924 Doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary to the present Doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary. To "test all things" order copies of all Doctrinal statements from the Turpin Library, as I did.
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]
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
PastorThiemeisGreat2me
()
Date: May 02, 2008 09:47AM
Oh sorry TT, I thought you read the current Blood of Christ. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords is also a fantastic book. Order it for free you might learn something you never knew before. How do I know that, well unless you are a Greek scholar I know you will.
Jesus Christ was the perfect God-man so of course his body and blood was important. He was the Last Adam a sinless human-being and God as well. I never said or implied it was'nt important but because you don't appear to understand the Blood of Christ as representing the spiritual death of Christ you seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from.
His physical blood has merit to you beyond what I consider what God intended it to have and what he had to do to purchase our redemption had nothing to do with his bleeding. Christ did not shed his blood and bleed to death like the animals shed their blood and bleed resulting in death. So what Christ did on the cross was receive the sins of the world on himself so that he who knew no sin WAS MADE to be SIN for us. Then God the Father seperated from him so that he died spiritually i.e. seperated himself from Christ who was made sin for us. That is called the Blood of Christ. This is my understanding that I agree with from my studies.
If you don't understand or believe what I believe that does not mean that I won't see you in heaven or visa versa. I think Paul will be the one who has all the doctrines correct and like I said before I'm still advancing and the Holy Spirit is still teaching me with Pastor Thieme and my personal study. I Thank the Lord for my Right Pastor Teacher. He's the imperfect person whom the Lord lead me to, to be my Pastor so if YOU don't like him that is up to you and as long as you have someone whom you like and grow from then you should not have any problem right?
OK lets leave it at that we agree to disagree. I'm satisfied from my personal study that I'm correct and if not the Lord, I said LORD, will surely reveal it to me, just like he cleared up the confusion I had when I found the 10 or so contridictions in the KJV. Confused no longer I appreciate my imperfect Pastor who's been lied on and about and whom others have pointed out his flaws but I don't believe them because the Devil is always lying on those who teach the truth so why should I believe them. Those little tricksters. Ultimately I'm following Christ anyway. I am surely happy that he gave me a Greek Bible and a Greek and Hebrew Scholar Pastor-teacher to dig out what is in the original languages. That has been a BLESSING to me that I will surely be most grateful for throughout all eternity future.
See Yah!
Jesus Christ was the perfect God-man so of course his body and blood was important. He was the Last Adam a sinless human-being and God as well. I never said or implied it was'nt important but because you don't appear to understand the Blood of Christ as representing the spiritual death of Christ you seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from.
His physical blood has merit to you beyond what I consider what God intended it to have and what he had to do to purchase our redemption had nothing to do with his bleeding. Christ did not shed his blood and bleed to death like the animals shed their blood and bleed resulting in death. So what Christ did on the cross was receive the sins of the world on himself so that he who knew no sin WAS MADE to be SIN for us. Then God the Father seperated from him so that he died spiritually i.e. seperated himself from Christ who was made sin for us. That is called the Blood of Christ. This is my understanding that I agree with from my studies.
If you don't understand or believe what I believe that does not mean that I won't see you in heaven or visa versa. I think Paul will be the one who has all the doctrines correct and like I said before I'm still advancing and the Holy Spirit is still teaching me with Pastor Thieme and my personal study. I Thank the Lord for my Right Pastor Teacher. He's the imperfect person whom the Lord lead me to, to be my Pastor so if YOU don't like him that is up to you and as long as you have someone whom you like and grow from then you should not have any problem right?
OK lets leave it at that we agree to disagree. I'm satisfied from my personal study that I'm correct and if not the Lord, I said LORD, will surely reveal it to me, just like he cleared up the confusion I had when I found the 10 or so contridictions in the KJV. Confused no longer I appreciate my imperfect Pastor who's been lied on and about and whom others have pointed out his flaws but I don't believe them because the Devil is always lying on those who teach the truth so why should I believe them. Those little tricksters. Ultimately I'm following Christ anyway. I am surely happy that he gave me a Greek Bible and a Greek and Hebrew Scholar Pastor-teacher to dig out what is in the original languages. That has been a BLESSING to me that I will surely be most grateful for throughout all eternity future.
See Yah!
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: May 02, 2008 06:18PM
Ps,
Is Thieme still using "junk science" in the 2002 BOC manual, to try prove the soul is located in the brain?
Thieme BOC 1979:
The innocent animal's blood was an apt representation of a life given on behalf of others because the animal's blood is its life. When the Scripture states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:10—14), it refers to animal flesh only. The Hebrew word nephesh sometimes means "life" and sometimes "soul," but when used of animals it obviously refers to animal life — not to human life. The seat of man's physical life is his soul resident in his body, but the animal does not have a soul. Therefore, such passages as Leviticus 17:10—14 teach us that the life of animal flesh is in the animal's blood. ...Remember that the soul is located in the cranium. Therefore, the heartbeat is not a reliable and conclusive sign of the presence of life. Medically speaking, instead of the electrocardiogram (EKG), the electroencephalogram (EEC), which measures the electrical impulses generated in the brain, is the true indicator of life or death. The heart can stop completely even though the soul is still in the body! When a patient's heart ceases to function, a physician will often try electrical shock, heart massage or some other technique to reactivate the pulse — often with success. But once the EEC registers negative, the soul has vacated the body, and the person is dead.
Truthtesty:
Thieme is saying the "the criterion" for human life is the "impulse in the brain" and that the EEG is proof and is a medical indicator of the soul being located in the brain. Perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain that to the Veternarians and Veternarian departments at universities all across America and the world, who use EEGs on animals.
Here's an example University of Tenneesse Veternarian clinical department:
[www.vet.utk.edu]
ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES
The Electrodiagnostic Laboratory is a full service facility of the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, offering a complete range of clinical diagnostic procedures. The following procedures or areas of study are available:
electroretinography
oscillatory potentials
visual evoked responses
electromyography
nerve conduction studies
electroencephalography
auditory evoked responses
acoustic reflex studies
otoacoustic emissions
tympanometry
somatosensory evoked responses
urethral pressure profilometry
cystometry
Animals have EEG brainwave activty - "impulse in the brain", therefore Thieme has not proven that the human soul is in the brain. When the animal dies his brainwave activity stops, just as in humans. Thieme's theory is a fraud - "junk science". No one knows where the soul is. Thieme did not prove that the soul of life is not partially in the literal blood. This was Thieme's best attempt at trying to prove his fallacious theory that human life is not in the literal blood, in support of his other fallacious theory that the "Blood of Christ" (figure of speech) specifically does not refer to the literal blood of Christ. Thieme couldn't do it. He tried.
Truthtesty
Is Thieme still using "junk science" in the 2002 BOC manual, to try prove the soul is located in the brain?
Thieme BOC 1979:
The innocent animal's blood was an apt representation of a life given on behalf of others because the animal's blood is its life. When the Scripture states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:10—14), it refers to animal flesh only. The Hebrew word nephesh sometimes means "life" and sometimes "soul," but when used of animals it obviously refers to animal life — not to human life. The seat of man's physical life is his soul resident in his body, but the animal does not have a soul. Therefore, such passages as Leviticus 17:10—14 teach us that the life of animal flesh is in the animal's blood. ...Remember that the soul is located in the cranium. Therefore, the heartbeat is not a reliable and conclusive sign of the presence of life. Medically speaking, instead of the electrocardiogram (EKG), the electroencephalogram (EEC), which measures the electrical impulses generated in the brain, is the true indicator of life or death. The heart can stop completely even though the soul is still in the body! When a patient's heart ceases to function, a physician will often try electrical shock, heart massage or some other technique to reactivate the pulse — often with success. But once the EEC registers negative, the soul has vacated the body, and the person is dead.
Truthtesty:
Thieme is saying the "the criterion" for human life is the "impulse in the brain" and that the EEG is proof and is a medical indicator of the soul being located in the brain. Perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain that to the Veternarians and Veternarian departments at universities all across America and the world, who use EEGs on animals.
Here's an example University of Tenneesse Veternarian clinical department:
[www.vet.utk.edu]
ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES
The Electrodiagnostic Laboratory is a full service facility of the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, offering a complete range of clinical diagnostic procedures. The following procedures or areas of study are available:
electroretinography
oscillatory potentials
visual evoked responses
electromyography
nerve conduction studies
electroencephalography
auditory evoked responses
acoustic reflex studies
otoacoustic emissions
tympanometry
somatosensory evoked responses
urethral pressure profilometry
cystometry
Animals have EEG brainwave activty - "impulse in the brain", therefore Thieme has not proven that the human soul is in the brain. When the animal dies his brainwave activity stops, just as in humans. Thieme's theory is a fraud - "junk science". No one knows where the soul is. Thieme did not prove that the soul of life is not partially in the literal blood. This was Thieme's best attempt at trying to prove his fallacious theory that human life is not in the literal blood, in support of his other fallacious theory that the "Blood of Christ" (figure of speech) specifically does not refer to the literal blood of Christ. Thieme couldn't do it. He tried.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
kcjones
()
Date: May 02, 2008 09:26PM
PastorThiemeisGreat2me
Before you leave, share your thoughts on Juker's testimony please.
KCJones.
Before you leave, share your thoughts on Juker's testimony please.
KCJones.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: May 03, 2008 10:27AM
pss quote: His physical blood has merit to you beyond what I consider what God intended it to have and what he had to do to purchase our redemption had nothing to do with his bleeding.
Truthtesty: Prove it.
Truthtesty: Prove it.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: May 03, 2008 10:29AM
pss quote: Christ did not shed his blood and bleed to death like the animals shed their blood and bleed resulting in death
Truthtesty: Prove it.
Truthtesty: Prove it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.