Current Page: 14 of 204
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: GeneZ ()
Date: February 16, 2007 01:55PM

Hi GeneZ -

I would not worry about TruthTesty. Here are some of his quotes from some of his posts on a History Channel forum:

[i:03d6f109ac]Personally I think christians are subhuman animal-like creatures. Actually animals are better.

My point is christians were sick murderers in the past and they are in the present.

Yes I am better than christians because I hold to the truth of reality as it is before me.

Well Ms neocon I am superior to you I don't try to hide it.

There is no hope in christianity becuase it does not exist. It was a virgin-saviour bedtime story that went from Egypt to Persia and throughout the regions of that time[/i:03d6f109ac]

Here is the link so readers can go through and read the whole discussion:


How is anyone going to argue with logic like that? lol ...Testy's authority on Christianity obviously cannot be questioned. What is the point of any further discussion?

Well, good to know.

That's all I needed to see to understand his attitude.

Thanks! Grace and peace, GeneZ

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: GeneZ ()
Date: February 16, 2007 01:57PM


You live in a dream world. I never saw your post last night. So I didn't fail as you falsely accuse me and I have nothing to hide. I see nothing desireable about you or whatever you have done with christianity.


Enough about your worthless spewings. I can see you have a 1 track brain and Everready bunny mouth.

What I think everyone should note is how Genez bypasses Dr. Wall's critique on Thieme's false cult doctrine of right pastor. I didn't notice you attacking Dr. Wall. As a matter of fact you went completely around Dr. Wall.



I have nothing to hide. I just hope that if anyone goes to that link you gave, that they read the whole page. Pros, and cons. I have nothing to hide.


Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Truthtesty ()
Date: February 17, 2007 10:21AM

Truthtesty states: What I think everyone should note is how Genez bypasses Dr. Wall's critique on Thieme's false cult doctrine of right pastor. Bunnymouth, I didn't notice you attacking Dr. Wall. As a matter of fact you went completely around Dr. Wall. Notice that Genez has not responded to Dr. Wall's critique of Thieme's cult doctrine of right pastor. (because it's untenable)

Genez has made statements:

I find this interesting how the word cult is used so freely. Got a gripe against some ministry? Its a cult. Oh well. So much for the ire of man.

Even so? What has this got to do with being a cult? Jerry Falwell is a cult if what you complain about were to be the criterion! I am beginning to think you're maybe a cult of anticult! You know? Think about it.

I do not understand what the man teaches!? He must be a cult!

Not always correct? OK. No one is. but? Cult? What?!

A cult is not based upon orthodox teachings that turn off certain believers who want to keep it on their own level.

Even Peter found Paul's teachings difficult to understand. Cult? Paul would have his name mentioned here if he was called to be a teacher today.

Cults believe they are doing God's will

"I do not like the man!" Therefore! He's a cult!?

Everyone is a cult. If you want him to be.

My intent was to take some of the reasons given to make RBT ministries out to be a cult, and to show it has nothing to do with what a cult really does. If anything. Its teachings are a reversal of what cults do.
I think you may need a new category to classify Thieme's ministry with. If its something bad to you? Cult would not be the proper heading. Not with how the word is used today. The first Church was classified as a cult in Rome. [/color:21647cfcb1]

Truthtesty states: I then gave here the facts so she could compare that to her desert-like delusions and she attacks me not Dr. Wall.

Genez (Bunnymouth) keeps bypassing Dr. Wall's DOCTORAL critique from Dallas Theological Seminary on thieme's cult doctrine of right pastor.
She has no answer. She is clueless. She needs water. Thieme's perspective is untenable. So she resorts to smashing and bashing me. Well go ahead Bunnymouth smash and bash at me all day and night. Try to make me out to be the worst and unbelieveable person in the world, but you can't do that to Dr. Wall. Can you? No. You can't. You can't do it. lol. The facts remain Thieme created the cult at Berachah. Thieme dug his own grave (and yours he-he-he). Thieme is out-ranked and out-taught and Thieme has been found wanting. Thieme has been put in place and you can't stand it. You have put so much into Thieme I know it hurts. I know to find out that you and Thieme have been wrong for so long is shocking at 1st. You feel like a loser. It's like a spouse leaving you suddenly. How could this happen? It's literally a tragedy.

Notice how Bunnymouth completely bypassed the conversation and made no mention that Thieme (This was Bunnymouth's famous bait and switch to avoid conversation so she said "You are not telling all the truth, and are almost rewriting my words by the context you cut and pasted. [/color:21647cfcb1] Bunnymouth said I did not did not provide the links then I did and I didn't misquote her and then she ran off into some vague garbage generalties about looking at pros and cons. And at the end of it she has completely avoided talking about Thieme's legalism and Thieme's self-appointment to sole autocratic authority of Berachah.) How you "almost re-write" somebody's words is ludicrous. lol. You either do or you don't.

Per Dr. Wall's dissertation: Thieme was called to the pastorate in May, 1950. 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 demanded their immediate resignation with the threat of his
resignation if his demand was not met. The dumbfounded deacons acceded to Thieme's demand, and the pastor became the dominant leader who brooked no challenge to his authority from that time forward.[/color:21647cfcb1]

demanded the resignations of the other deacons at Berachah. So that Thieme could be the sole ruler of Berachah. She said Thieme said it was because they were legalistic, but Thieme is legalistic. It's just more Thieme hypocrasy. Thieme is a self-appointed control-freak cult leader.

Well then Genez I have a question for you. AGAIN. Is all christianty a cult? If not would you let this forum know your distinction between cultic christianity and non-cultic christianity?

This is very simple.

I guess you never expected to run into a genius who could or would debunk Thieme. lol. This is like killing vampire bats I love it.

Notice Bunnymouth is not interested warning you about the spiritual dangers Dr. Wall has cautioned about Thieme, she just wants to bash me.


Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: ephesians1:3 ()
Date: February 17, 2007 12:04PM

Liberty -

My stand is that 1 John 1:9 must be used consistently in the life of the Christian, post-salvation. Yes, to disregard 1 John 1:9 is to abandon your spiritual life, including your prayer life, and including spiritual momentum. Period.

Having said that, while it might be stated, in technical terms, that the abandonment of 1 John 1:9 could lead to the sin unto death status, and loss of eternal rewards, I personally think this needs to be qualified with a more detailed explanation because there are just too many variables. Such as:

1. God is infinitely patient. Perhaps He is waiting for a believer to "rebound". Maybe it will take years. The same principle applies to God's grace when He waits on someone to accept Christ. It is the same as if God's foreknowledge sees that a person will accept Christ at age 70, so they are kept alive until that point.

2. Blessing by association that keeps someone not only alive, but in a state of blessing.

3. Kept alive to test others.

4. Maybe a believer rejects rebound, but does it anyway here and there. Maybe they commit some sin that gives them enough guilt so that they do it "to be safe". In this case, they are knocked back into fellowship, even though, on principle, they reject the rebound doctrine. This might not get them a spiritual life going again, but it just might be enough to knock away discipline. I'll get more into this subject when I have more time.

5. Keep in mind, different sins exact different divine discipline. David's were so great that he was facing perhaps immediate death. Again, technically, rejection of rebound might end up in the sin unto death. If you take point x of being the point of sin and refusal to rebound and then y at the point of death, the distance betweex x and y could vary greatly depending on severity of sin (ie. did you commit adultery, or did you just flip somebody off in trafffic). And this time period could even vary based on factors 1-4 above.

This is as adequate an answer as I can give in the time I have, without sitting down to really look over your previous posts. I'll try to work on it little by little as I have time. Also, I don't know if you noticed, but Galiban directly addressed you a few posts back regarding this issue. (I am constantly missing posts myself due to the way they are sometimes posted).

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Truthtesty ()
Date: February 17, 2007 08:56PM

Ephesians stated: You say that you never said you were a Christian, yet you have posted comments such as:


That is unhealthy for the body of Jesus.

Debates would have allowed the biblical truth of Jesus to reign, not Thieme

Jesus went all the way to hell and defeated it but it would just be too much of a risk to allow other christian theologians to speak in church?

The bible says watch out for false teachers, that we are to be WISE AS THE SERPENTS HARMLESS AS DOVES

And then you quote extensively from a dissertation, written by a very dedicated Christian theologian, that, in your words proves Thieme wrong.

You don't find all of this just a little bit...deceptive?

Are my statements not true? I am not the way the truth and the life. My point is to take the cult(s) out of christianity. I get highly upset when people try to justify murder in the name of Jesus. I am so so sick of people spilling blood for thier ideological beliefs. That message I gave to those people on the History Channel was the message they needed to hear.

My motivation? I could have lied about the History Channel posts. I could have easily said that someone else was impersonating me to discredit me. No one could have proved otherwise. But I didn't. I told the truth. I have done a lot of research on christianity since my faith was shattered at Berachah.

I have seen so many people murder, malign, sanction, and attack other people (and other christians) for "thier interpretation" of christianity. This is true in history as well. The Catholics killed the Protestants and the Protestants murdered Catholics. The Crusades. Muslims murdered Christians. Christians murdered Muslims. There was "christian" King in France that completed genocide of a certain christian population in France, because they has different view of the bible. The Inquisition in which horrible tortures were used to extract "confessions of faith" was used. The "christian" Salem Witch Trials in America in which urine of the "possesed" was sniffed by a dog then the next person the dog went to was a "witch". The witch(s) were tried and burned. Irish Catholics were persecuted economically in England by Protestants, thier lands were taken. This economic persecution of the Irish Catholics continued in the early America. Hitler was Aryan chistian who attended 1 year of Theology. We all know his story. A couple of things that are not so well known, Hitler used "Positive Christianity" in his manipulation of the masses. Hitler used "christian" Henry Ford's "The international Jew" to help manipulate the masses to be anti-semitic. On every Nazi belt buckle was inscribed "Gott Mit Uns" "God is with us" There is controversy about Hitler's christianity, however one thing is certain, Hitler used christianity to politically manipulate the German population. In more current history there is "christian" Andrea Yates (murdered her 5 children) , "christian" Jim Jones over 900 people murdered including 1 US congressman, "christian" David Koresh let the children of that cult die over 200 people were killed, the BTK killer twisted sado-masochistic serial murderer was a president of a christian church congregation and who sought jobs in which he could enjoy positions of authority over people. Timothy Mcveigh was a member "christian identity" and a homegrown terrorist who committed the "Oklahoma City bombings" murdered innocent Americans including children.

I consider this the "Insanity of christianity" done in the name and "LOVE of Jesus" deceiving well intended christians in the process.

So I am definetly not that kind of christian.

I think it is entirely possible that the Romans created christianity out of thier virgin-born saviour myth "Mithras" which Rome believed for 800 years. When the Romans conquered another people the made them confess to the Roman God Mithras, and swear that Ceasar was thier Lord or they killed them. The Ceasar of Rome was the Pontifus Maximus. A title that the Pope carries to this day. It is possible that christianity was created by Romans to conquer the Jews. When you conquer a nation you need those people to be slaves to extract the resources of that nation. The Roman Coliseum was built by Jews and with wealth of the Jews. So Rome did not want to kill them all. The Jews would not confess that Ceasar was thier Lord. The Romans didn't just conquer the people physically they wanted complete domination this included the conquered people's religion. Most historians know of the famous Masada ([]). The Jews simply would not confess. It's entirely possible that the Romans took the Jewish Torah during the years of the "Jewish Wars" and married the Messiah of Judaism to Rome's Mithras, thus extracting the desired submission and confession of the Jews to the Pontifus Maximus(Ceasar) thus"happy slaves" thus complete domination. The first book of the bible was written during the Jewish wars.

Then again it is entirely possible that Jesus is very real and that he is GOD IN FLESH. Here's the distinction between cults and Jesus. Here's the answer between cultic and non-cultic christianity. The cult of the early christian church was a cult that formed [u:5047241fcf]after[/u:5047241fcf] Jesus. [b:5047241fcf][u:5047241fcf]"GOD IN FLESH" is a "perfect authority" therefore submission to that authority is not corrupting. [/b:5047241fcf]Submission to "imperfect flesh" is corrupting and creates the sickness that we see so often in christianity.[/u:5047241fcf] This is the reason to rely on God, not man. I think some verses in the bible that support this. "You shall have no idol before me". The bible says watch out for false teachers, that we are to be WISE AS THE SERPENTS HARMLESS AS DOVES.

I mean no disrespect for honest well intending and well acting christians.


Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: SpiritualLiberty ()
Date: February 18, 2007 12:40AM

Greetings, Galiban, and welcome to the discussion. First of all, let me address the following statement:

[i:a010215776]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.[/i:a010215776]

We know that the entire Bible is divinely inspired, Galiban (the [i:a010215776]theologian[/i:a010215776]), but this does not mean that you can arbitrarily grab verses from different books penned by different authors in different contexts and make them mean the same thing. When we’re reading Ephesians 5:18, there is no reason to jump over to 1 John 1, grab verse 9, and say, “They mean the same thing.” You have to have some kind of logical scriptural reason for doing so. The rebound formula taught by Thieme and Thiemite pastors basically looked like this:

[u:a010215776][b:a010215776]You must be filled with the Spirit.[/b:a010215776][/u:a010215776]
Eph 5:18 [i:a010215776]And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.[/i:a010215776]

1Jo 1:9 [i:a010215776]If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.[/i:a010215776]

Unfortunately, we are never given any reason for building this magical bridge between these two verses (except “Col. Thieme says so”). We could just as easily plug in any other verse under [b:a010215776]“How?” [/b:a010215776]just to fit our preconceived opinion.

When we are studying a particular scripture, and we want further understanding of what is being taught, we must look for other passages that are actually [i:a010215776]relevant[/i:a010215776]. Obviously, we don’t look up passages on the Second Coming of Christ when we’re looking for information on spiritual gifts, even though these are both Biblical doctrines, and the passages on both subjects were inspired by God. It’s just a matter of simple common sense.

When we’re studying Ephesians 5:18, we need to consider other [i:a010215776]relevant [/i:a010215776]scriptures, especially the immediate context and other passages where spirituality is mentioned. The context of Ephesians chapter 5 (as well as chapters 4 and 6) is the [i:a010215776]lifestyle [/i:a010215776]and [i:a010215776]spiritual growth [/i:a010215776]of the believer, where Paul challenges and exhorts us concerning carnal behavior (like bitterness, lying, anger, and carnal speech) and spiritual qualities (in patience and forgiveness for others, family relationships, giving thanks, prayer, etc.). And the most clear comparison of spirituality versus carnality is in 1 Corinthians 3, where the issue is obviously spiritual growth versus immaturity. There are very obvious, logical, scriptural reasons for comparing these passages. But there is no legitimate reason whatsoever for using 1 John 1:9 to determine the meaning of Eph 5:18. Eph 5 never mentions confession of sins, and 1 John 1 never mentions the filling of the Spirit. (In fact, in all Paul’s epistles, confessing sins is never mentioned once.) Using your arbitrary, haphazard method, we could grab any verse that strikes our fancy and insert it under [b:a010215776]“How?” [/b:a010215776]in the Rebound Formula. We could plug in any verse we like and make the filling of the Spirit into anything we please. We could just as easily build an imaginary bridge between 1 John 1:9 and any other verse.

[i:a010215776]Every Christian is filled with the Holy spirit. [/i:a010215776]

Really? I thought only people who “rebounded” were filled with the Spirit?

[i:a010215776]Even the members of the church at Corinth, who were said to be “carnal” and “babes in Christ,” [b:a010215776]possessed the Holy Spirit [/b:a010215776](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, [b:a010215776]is the temple of the Holy Spirit [/b:a010215776](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). [/i:a010215776]

Galiban (the [i:a010215776]theologian[/i:a010215776]), even Thieme and other pastors who teach his doctrine will tell you that there is a difference between the indwelling of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit. To possess the Holy Spirit does not mean to be filled with the Spirit—that’s what we supposedly need “rebound” for.

[i:a010215776]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.[/i:a010215776]

Of course we are commanded not to grieve and quench the Spirit, Galiban, but where does the Bible ever say that naming and citing our sins is the solution to grieving and quenching the Spirit? You can’t just keep building this imaginary magical bridge between 1 John 1:9 and all these other verses, with no logical scriptural reason to do so. Again, Eph 4-6 is all about spiritual growth and the qualities of spiritual maturity I just mentioned. In 1 Thess 5, we see many similar spiritual qualities, such as comforting and supporting the weak, having patience toward others, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks. Confessing sins is never even mentioned in these passages.

[i:a010215776]We are to set aside the old man, the former life of the flesh in Eph 4:22, ... Then to put on the new man that has been developed by that control of the Holy Spirit in you (Eph 4:24) ... [/i:a010215776]

Where is it ever stated that setting aside the old man and putting on the new man are the result of confessing our sins? Again, look at the context of Eph 4, and find me one verse that tells us to confess sins.

[i:a010215776]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. [/i:a010215776]

Of course we have a choice of which nature (old or new) that we will follow. We have daily choices to obey God or obey our own flesh. But where in the entire Bible does that choice have anything to do with naming and citing a list of our sins to God?

[i:a010215776]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: . Jesus states that if you do not allow your feet to be washed you have no share with Him (John 13: .
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; [b:a010215776]the foot washing is the confession of sin to then be made “completely clean”, [/b:a010215776]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 [b:a010215776]confess your sins [/b:a010215776]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 [b:a010215776]forgive those sins [/b:a010215776]and “cleanse”(Hint: please notice the analogy) from all unknown or forgotten ones. [/i:a010215776]

Once again, allow me to point out the obvious. You dogmatically state that “the foot washing is the confession of sin.” Yet, as usual, confession of sin [i:a010215776]is not mentioned anywhere in the passage[/i:a010215776]. You go on to say that this is to be “made ‘completely clean.’” You have a dangerous problem here, Galiban. You are essentially saying that when we believe in Christ, we are not completely forgiven and cleansed from our sins, and that something else must be done about this after faith in Christ. Salvation, forgiveness of sins, and cleansing from unrighteousness must be perfect and complete or not at all. So the question here is what exactly the Lord meant when He washed His disciples’ feet. Cleansing/washing is used in several ways in the Bible, and the context of the passage must determine its meaning. (Note that forgiveness of sins is not mentioned here. Neither is “restoration to fellowship.” And neither is an instant restoration of the filling of the Spirit.) Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Lord Himself gave us an explanation of what exactly He was teaching us through this foot washing? Well, He does. In verse 12, He says, “Know ye what I have done to you?” The Lord is going to explain to the disciples why He washed their feet. He goes on to say, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; [b:a010215776]ye also ought to wash one another’s feet[/b:a010215776]. For I have given you an [b:a010215776]example[/b:a010215776], that ye should do as I have done to you.” When our Lord Himself explains the lesson behind the foot washing, does He mention anything at all about confessing sins or regaining fellowship? If “rebound” were true, this would certainly be an ideal place in the Bible to tell us about confessing our sins for restoration to fellowship. But our Lord says nothing of the kind. He says He has given us an “[i:a010215776]example[/i:a010215776]” of how we are to treat one another. He commands us to “wash one another’s feet.” If the washing of the feet refers to confessing our sins for forgiveness, then how can we possibly wash each other’s feet? Do we cleanse each other’s sins? Why are you inventing another explanation of foot washing, when our Lord has already given us a crystal clear explanation Himself?

[i:a010215776]Understand we need to be restored to fellowship with God. God cannot have contact with Sin. (1 John 1:5, Habakkuk 1:13) [/i:a010215776]

Understand, Galiban, that God is a perfectly holy, just God, who can have [i:a010215776]no contact with sin whatsoever[/i:a010215776]. We must be [i:a010215776]completely and forever [/i:a010215776]forgiven and cleansed from our sins, and [i:a010215776]always [/i:a010215776]accepted and in fellowship with God, or not at all. There is no such thing as this on-and-off, ping-pong kind of forgiveness, cleansing, and fellowship and acceptance with God anywhere in the Bible. God is holy and just. He can either accept us through the blood of Jesus Christ and fellowship with us, or He cannot.

[i:a010215776]You cannot have fellowship with Him and operate according to the flesh. To state such is a lie. (1 John 1:6) [/i:a010215776]

1 John 1:6 says, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and [b:a010215776]walk in darkness[/b:a010215776], we lie, and do not the truth.” You assume that to walk in darkness is a believer “out of fellowship.” But have you ever done a study on light and darkness in the New Testament, or have you just accepted this because Col. Thieme said so? Light and darkness are used throughout the New Testament in reference to being [i:a010215776]saved [/i:a010215776]or [i:a010215776]lost[/i:a010215776]. (See John 1:4-5, 3:19-21, 8:12, 12:46; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 5:8; Col 1:12-13; 1 The 5:4-5; 1 Pet 2:9.) As I explained in a previous post, John is dealing with the issue of unbelievers who deny that they sin and deny their need of Jesus Christ. To walk in darkness is to be lost and headed for hell. The believer has been delivered from the kingdom of darkness and has entered the kingdom of light, and he can never walk in darkness again.

[i:a010215776]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. [/i:a010215776]

1 John 1:7 says, “But if we [b:a010215776]walk in the light[/b:a010215776], as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and [b:a010215776]the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin[/b:a010215776].” To walk in the light is to simply be a born-again believer, who has been delivered from the kingdom of darkness (1 Pet 2:9). And the blood of Jesus Christ cleansing us from all sin is what happens when a person becomes born again and saved. There are numerous scriptures on this throughout the New Testament.

[i:a010215776]1 John 1:8 states that we do bear the guilt of the sin even after salvation.[/i:a010215776]

1 John 1:8 says nothing of the kind. Think about what you’re saying, Galiban. You are denying the finished work of the Cross. You are saying that our Lord’s sacrifice was not complete, and that the guilt of our sins is still hanging over our heads, even after we believe in Him. It is this kind of thinking that ultimately lead Thieme into outright heresy, when he denied the forgiveness of all sins through the Cross. And you are headed down the same road. 1 John 1:8 says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” If the truth is not in us, then we are not even saved. In John 14:6, Jesus Christ is “the way, the [b:a010215776]truth[/b:a010215776], and the life.” If you do not have the truth in you, you do not have Christ in you. In John 5:38, Jesus told the unbelieving Pharisees, [i:a010215776]“And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.”[/i:a010215776] And in John 8:37, He told them, [i:a010215776]“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.” [/i:a010215776]John would never say of any true believer that the Word of God is not in them, no matter how weak they may be. All believers have the truth and the Word of God in them because they have been born again of incorruptible seed by the Word of God (1 Pet 1:23). How well they understand the truth and the Word is another thing, but they all have it. Again, in 1 John 1:8, John is still dealing with unbelievers who deny that they are sinners and need a Savior.

There is nothing mentioned here about “bearing the guilt of the sin even after salvation.” John simply states that if we deny that we’re sinners, we’re deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. That’s all he says, no more, no less. You can’t read things into the text just to make it fit Thieme’s doctrine.
[i:a010215776]1 John 1:9 gives us the protocol to cleanse ourselves through simple confession and then we are made clean and can have fellowship. [/i:a010215776]

1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to [b:a010215776]forgive us our sins[/b:a010215776], and to [b:a010215776]cleanse us from all unrighteousness[/b:a010215776].” Throughout the New Testament, forgiveness of sins and cleansing from unrighteousness is what takes place [i:a010215776]at salvation[/i:a010215776]. John goes on to say in verse 10, “If we say that we have not sinned, [b:a010215776]we make him a liar[/b:a010215776], and [b:a010215776]his word is not in us[/b:a010215776].” As noted above, those who do not have the Word in them are unbelievers. And those who make God a liar are also unbelievers: [i:a010215776]“He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God [b:a010215776]hath made him a liar[/b:a010215776]; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son” [/i:a010215776](1 John 5:10).

Thieme had to work really hard to build this false doctrine of “rebound.” His foundation is 1 John 1:9, but this foundation is paper thin because 1 John 1:9 doesn’t even mention the filling of the Spirit, nor is it ever mentioned in the entire epistle. So now Thieme has to go looking for any other passage he can possibly twist into a “rebound” passage. That’s why he had to go to 1 Cor 11:31, Eph 4:22-24, Col 3:9-10, Heb 12:1, Heb 12:12, and the other passages you mentioned, and try to make them “synonyms” for “rebound.” What Thieme essentially does is take passages that deal with a change of heart and a change of life, and try to make them say, “Confess your ‘known sins’ to be ‘restored to fellowship’ and ‘filled with the Spirit.’” He is grasping at straws. And even when he tries digging into the koine Greek, he cannot get around what is simply and clearly stated in plain English.

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Truthtesty ()
Date: February 18, 2007 09:15AM

Oh my my. Did Galiban just get body slammed? lol!! whoa! I told ya! I told ya! God bless the internet! I have been telling you pople for years that Thieme was false. So I tell you what you do now Ephesians, Genez, and Galiban, it is your obligation if you have any character at all, go tell other Thiemites that Thieme is false. Thieme is being debunked. Thieme being taken apart piece by piece. This is the way it should be. My my all those people that I have seen suffering from Thieme for fifty years. My my the people that have committed suicide because Thieme made them weak. My my the people who became schizophrenic from Thieme (then Thiemites "blame the victim"). My my all the families and faithful churches that have divided by Thieme. My my all those people who lost thier faith because of Thieme. My my all those honest christians who had thier faith VIOLATED by Thieme, like some MOLESTOR! Thieme has all the signs of a cult!



I am declaring victory over Thieme's false teachings. If any Thiemite wishes to contest that. Bring it all on and bring your best! I have been waiting for this day ever since my brother died, because another family member was listening to a Thieme tape, instead of being a adult responsible and watching the children. This is justice! It won't bring my brother back, but this is JUSTICE!


Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Galiban ()
Date: February 18, 2007 12:03PM

I obviously misunderstood who you were. I thought you were a Christian looking for answers. Instead another false teacher that touts a seemingly convincing arguement that is not based upon doctrinal understanding but on judgmental viewpoint and legalism.

One of the wolves in sheeps clothing. When a non Christian defends you, think twice about what you are teaching.

Sad times when anyone can claim a church is a cult. This just gives a pulpit to false teachers sent to decieve the people of God.

Different viewpoint does not necessarily make a cult. If that were the case then Catholics would view all Protestants as Heretics and Protestants view all Catholics as Apostolic cultists.....wait I think that both sides claim just that.

I clearly see by your rebuttal your animosity and of what Spirit you come from [b:33d52a1f0b]1John 1-6 and 2Peter 3:16.[/b:33d52a1f0b]

I pity you who judge and even attack doctrinal teachers. That is a destructive fate you have ingested.

I will not be replying in this forum or even viewing it again.

I Pray that God may guide all who view this forum to the truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: ephesians1:3 ()
Date: February 18, 2007 03:01PM

Hi Liberty -

This will be my last post on this forum. I know I've said this before, but there has always been something that needs to be revised or clarified. Right now ending this is just a matter of my life priorities, which include my family and school and my [i:539111da4a]own[/i:539111da4a] personal Bible study. You've provided now what is probably a small book of material to go through. Even if I respond to what you've written just this far, the debate could easily run into a back and forth of months worth of posts (I've been there, and knowing me, I'll want to keep responding to every post you make). Given all of this, I’ll provide some info at the end of this post that I think will help me end where I want to end.

I'd like to start with 1 John 1:9. I think it's very important, first, to isolate the act of confession (we'll just call it confession), from the [i:539111da4a]results[/i:539111da4a] of confession. The reason is this: When you confess, the results of confession happen [i:539111da4a]whether or not[/i:539111da4a] you understand them, or even believe them to be true. So, to reiterate my previously made point, you don't have to understand or even [i:539111da4a]believe[/i:539111da4a] that 1 John 1:9 produces fellowship or the Filling of the Spirit, as long as you perform the act. It is completely possible to have an active and meaningful spiritual life, as long as you name your sins to God, [i:539111da4a]even if[/i:539111da4a] you are understanding nothing about the [i:539111da4a]results[/i:539111da4a] of the act.

Our whole spiritual life, as Christians, is at stake. I pointed you to the links, which weren't even a drop in the bucket, of sites that taught that 1 John 1:9 must be ongoing. This point needs to be dealt with first, before we even get into the filling/fellowship argument. Thus, we need to start again at this point:

Is 1 John 1:9 something that needs to be practiced continually in the life of the believer?

Again, your response is that it is not, this verse is a salvation-oriented verse.

But you make a serious contradiction in your posts. You seem to state that, yes, confession of sin (which is the same thing as admittance, or naming) is something we need to do:

Liberty: [i:539111da4a]Obviously, whenever we fall into sin, we need to admit we’ve sinned and repent[/i:539111da4a]

But then you go on to say:

[i:539111da4a]there is nothing here that implies the constant, mechanical performance of the “rebound” ritual every time we have a wayward thought[/i:539111da4a]

Can you please tell me the difference between "sin" and "wayward thought"? These would not be one and the same? If by wayward thought you mean to say something such as just some quick mental aberration such as a mental sexual sin, well that is a sin, as Jesus stated. Perhaps your emphasis is on the word "constant", can you clarify what this means? Once in a while...just the bad ones? Who then determines what the line you cross is? One act of adultery? Two? Three lies? Just confess once a week? Here and there? When we feel guilty about something? What if I subjectively delude myself into thinking my particular sins aren't that bad? Remember the sins that the Lord "hates" in Proverbs 6:16-19..pride is right there at the top? Ok to let that one slide? Can you see my point? We can't paint with shades of gray when our spiritual lives need to be led by black and white.

[b:539111da4a]You really need to clarify what you mean here, because either we need to confess sins in an ongoing manner, as Christians, or we don't, period. [/b:539111da4a]

If we do, as you [i:539111da4a]seem[/i:539111da4a] to imply, though you are vague about it, then we need to know how often, at one point, which sins? etc. You seem to imply by your first statement that, yes, we should confess, but not to get neurotic about it. Well, I certainly don't. I make sure I do it before my Bible study, before I go to bed at night, and at various intervals throughout the day, but if I'm in traffic in a state of agitation at the various people driving like maniacs (one of my areas of weakness), I'm not going to confess every 2 seconds while I'm in my car, because I would just be getting right back out of fellowship before I could blink again. If this is what you mean by "mechanical"..then, yea, I agree with you. I'm just going to have to be "carnal" until I pull up into my driveway and allow myself to cool down a little bit. I mean we have to have some common sense about these things.

So maybe this is what you meant...confess, but don't get neurotic about it. said in your post dated 2/1:

[i:539111da4a]I have not “rebounded” for two years[/i:539111da4a]

I take this to mean you have not performed the act of naming of any of your sins over the last two years to the Lord. Let me put two of your statements side by side, so you can digest the contradiction of your own words:

[i:539111da4a]Obviously, whenever we fall into sin, we need to admit we’ve sinned and repent[/i:539111da4a]

[i:539111da4a]I have not “rebounded” for two years[/i:539111da4a]

If these are not contradictions, then your terms need serious clarification. By not rebounding do you just mean that you don't think of 1 John 1:9 as needing to be ongoing in your life, or that you haven't named any personal sins in two years? If you still name your sins, even though you reject the filling/fellowship result, technically you are [i:539111da4a]still[/i:539111da4a] benefiting from the results of confession, whether you believe those results are true or not.

You also stated:

[i:539111da4a]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[/i:539111da4a]

This is what I mean by black and white subjectivity. Exactly what is a "change of heart"? I can have an emotional "change of heart" right now about something, and then turn right around and fall right back into old patterns tomorrow. How many people do you think have these "changes of heart" but its just the same old sixes and sevens the minute their mind wanders elsewhere? Human will and power is just too weak to propagate any kind of long-term change of life based on a one-time decision to get emotional about doing better. The implication of the verse is simple. David named his sins to God, and God removed the discipline from David.

You may make light of my choosing of OT verses, but [i:539111da4a]every[/i:539111da4a] verse in the Bible is the Word of God and means something. Look at the verses back to back, the implication, just in the English alone, is undeniable:

[i:539111da4a]Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "the Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die." (2 Sam. 12:13) [/i:539111da4a]

[i:539111da4a]If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9)[/i:539111da4a]

To me, that is just black and white. And I'm not even getting into exegesis. But you say "whenever we fall into sin, we need to admit we’ve sinned" , but then when 1 John 1:9 states this [i:539111da4a]very[/i:539111da4a] idea, you say no, that's not what that verse says, even though, well, that's what it says.

You make a ruckus about forcing viewpoints onto the translation, but yet you seem to force your own doctrines on the verses by telling us they say something other than what they appear to. Which brings me to the argument of the importance of 1 John 1:9 to the basic spiritual life. Indeed, Thieme's exegesis goes a long way toward development of doctrines that are difficult to derive from simple English readings, but 1 John 1:9 must be as simple as a salvation verse to understand, given its dire importance. It was even your own thought that people, away from the aid of lexicons or pastors, must be able to understand the Bible in their own language. Be honest, if immediately after you were saved, I had given you 1 John 1:9, and you had to tell me what it meant to you in plain English, what would you have said. What do 95% of the Christians of the world believe it means? Just what it says. [i:539111da4a]That's[/i:539111da4a] why millions of Christians have been able to have at least a basic and meaningful spiritual life over the last 2,000 years. Because, they read, and believed that Christ died for their sins, and then they read, and believed, that they could confess their sins as needed to God and be forgiven.

Closing thoughts:

It's been said a million times before, but I still am completely amazed that Berachah is considered a cult. This church that has stood under Thieme for 53 years (and he could have been voted out of there at [i:539111da4a]any[/i:539111da4a] time, the church has a Board of Deacons just like any other church), that has provided free books, tapes and CDs for 53 years..and I'm not talking about here and there out of a back room...I'm talking about worldwide distribution to thousands upon thousands (how many churches do you know of that do this, I mean, really?), that lets its attendees come and go freely as they choose, always completely protecting their privacy, and never getting in your business if you leave and don't come back? In addition to being aggressively pro-semitic and completely financially transparent. This is a cult?

There is always a horror story here and there (I mean, aren't there horror stories with any type of group that attempts any kind of religious indoctrination)? But what many people reading these forums haven't heard are the thousands upon thousands of positive stories. Stories about how doctrine has completely changed their lives, brought them out of depression, brought them back from the brink of suicide. We had the privilege of listening to Bobby read some of these letters after he assumed pastorship of the church. Some stories just tear the heart.

Wall's's just a dissertation. Very well written. I'm sure Wall is a very dedicated Christian and I have not doubt as to his desire to serve God. But it's also one's [i:539111da4a]job[/i:539111da4a] when you are writing any kind of thesis or disseration to make your point at all costs. I mean, this is your [i:539111da4a]degree[/i:539111da4a] or at the very least your grade on the line. All points to your credit need to be hammered home, and anything that doesn't adhere to your thesis statement needs to be rejected. It's just as if you were in a debate, it's your [i:539111da4a]job[/i:539111da4a] to win that debate. A great writer or debator can take the opposing side's view (the one they don't believe) and convince others they are right. My best friend is a master at this, it's very amusing to watch.

Regarding multiplicity of teachers. Thieme never had a problem with multiple pastors. During the '60s he even had an associate pastor (Bill Munderland) who taught all the time. But Thieme's methods also changed...he used to rotate the books he was studying in by day of the week. Things changed because he started going into more detail and exegeting verse by verse. This necessitated him being in the pulpit full time (sometimes books took [i:539111da4a]years[/i:539111da4a] to go through) so listeners could concentrate on the consecutive nature of the teaching. Now, if you're talking about doctrinal authority, that's another issue. And I do believe this should rest with one head pastor, and that's the position Thieme took. The example is set by Paul. It was Paul who braced Peter in Galatians, it was Paul who wrote the Corinthians and put them back into line when the church began to divide. The churches where Paul was set up as head pastor, he was the authority.

Other things not discussed are the compassion Thieme had. Long time followers have been witness to the power of God's Word and learning the Mind of Christ which had transformed this hard-nosed man who would sooner punch his way through life with his fists, into one of the kindest, most compassionate men. If you want the stories, you'll have to order Bobby's lessons (yes, they are free too).

As far as Thieme giving apologies (since cult leaders don't do that), I think everybody should read post #29 (near the bottom) by King-Priest on this page that GeneZ has posted to:


There is the story of my own life..I should have died 3 times..I was also one of the most contentious, neurotic teenagers you have ever met. The power of God's Word through Thieme's teaching over the last 20 years has brought me to a place that I almost have to cry in happiness when I think about what I have and how much I don't deserve it. I'm far from perfect, but I have a contentment and blessings that I don't deserve in the least bit. I can't prove these things to anybody on here, but those that know me know what I'm talking about.

I would like to end with some links to a website that I think will elucidate any exegetical concerns in a far better manner than I ever could. This person is a long-time student of Thieme's. Anything I could write concerning such matters as the Filling of the Spirit, or Right-Pastor, etc. would only be copying this persons thoughts, and they do a far better job of clarifying these things than I ever could. This site is worth the time that it takes to go through:

For 1 John 1:9 (short);


1 John 1:9 (long):




Having said that, you have the last word. It's been a pleasure to talk with everyone, and the wonderful thing is, whether we like it (or accept it) or not, everyone posting here lately will be together in Heaven, based on His imputed righteousness we received when we believed. We are all in union in the Body of Christ.

Options: ReplyQuote
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by: Truthtesty ()
Date: February 19, 2007 12:34AM


Now, if you're talking about doctrinal authority, that's another issue. And I do believe this should rest with one head pastor, and that's the position Thieme took. The example is set by Paul. It was Paul who braced Peter in Galatians, it was Paul who wrote the Corinthians and put them back into line when the church began to divide. The churches where Paul was set up as head pastor, he was the authority.

Perfect doctrinal authority is the Holy Spirit's authority. Pauls' authority was not perfect, neither is Thieme's, therefore submission to false authority is an unecessary corruption of your faith, therefore you lack discernment. That is your choice. The only authority that is perfect and non-corrupting is Jesus's authority (God's authority). I believe this mistake has been made for thousands of years. I believe this is the reason for so much death and destruction of christians among christians.

Thieme's best potential was to be an EXAMPLE to you, not ramrodding his undebateable highly controversial opinions down your throat day after day with your endless questionless dependency. THAT IS NOT EQUIPPING YOU. EQUIPPING YOU IMPLIES THE COMPLETION OF AN ACTION. BEING EQUIPPED. BEING EQUIPPED TO LEARN THE WORD FOR YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN MINISTER THE WORD TO OTHERS, TO BE A HEALTHY CONTRIBUTION TO THE BODY. Paying attention and memorizing is not learning in and of itself. A dog can pay attention and memorize: people's faces, scents, etc... your failing the mission soldier.

Did not Jesus say ASK? If Jesus said ASK, then why can't you question Thieme?



It's been said a million times before, but I still am completely amazed that Berachah is considered a cult.

Then you would probably be AMAZED :shock: that the cult of Sung Yun Moon (the Moonies) manufactures M-16s for the United States military. Moon is also the owner of the right-wing Washington Post. Moon doesn't like anyone questioning his authority either. By the way Moon said he met Muhammed, Buddha and Jesus in person! and his cult followers believe it! They don't question it. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BE IN OR CREATE A CULT IN THE UNITED STATES.


Wall's's just a dissertation. Very well written. I'm sure Wall is a very dedicated Christian and I have not doubt as to his desire to serve God. But it's also one's job when you are writing any kind of thesis or disseration to make your point at all costs. I mean, this is your degree or at the very least your grade on the line. All points to your credit need to be hammered home, and anything that doesn't adhere to your thesis statement needs to be rejected. It's just as if you were in a debate, it's your job to win that debate. A great writer or debator can take the opposing side's view (the one they don't believe) and convince others they are right. My best friend is a master at this, it's very amusing to watch.

Glad you see this as entertainment. So discussing Jesus to you is no more important than amusing entertainment? say watching a movie? Popcorn? Tennis anyone? Notice Ephesians did not offer even one specific example for an honest conversation, she just implied that Dr. Wall was just a failing, lazy, and lackadaisical student and failed to do what she mentioned. No facts. No objectivity.

Why can't you say Thieme ... Thieme is just a christian?

Go back to your pit Ephesians, I'll bet you'll think twice before you pop out again.

Do you find that amusing?

Take Care


Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 14 of 204

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