Welcome jr,


I am not taking your story for granted, but there is much in you story sounds that is familiar that other people have experienced ie: negative character, empty heart, extremist judgmental character, lack of love and compassion, arrogance, distortion etc...

jr quote: "one of the past preacher used to say that "KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT LOVE IS SIMPLY IGNORANCE"

I like what your past preacher said. It makes sense and it is funny.

Thanks for sharing.


Truthtesty

Jr,

You may want to have a look at a resource link on page 135, 2nd post down.
It is the 4shared link. The majority of material there is from before this forum began.

Hi Jr,
Thanks for joining the conversation! Hope that you will stick around a while. Would you say that Thieme groups are widespread in the Philippines?

Scripture says KNOWLEDGE PUFFETH UP BUT LOVE EDIFIES the Body of Christ. Quite different from what Thieme teaches, isn't it?

1Co 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.


~ Sistersoap

THIEME'S LIST OF TERMS AT END OF HIS ARTICLE:
GATE 9: PSYCHOPATHIC ARROGANCE

As I said before, I won't deal with every term Thieme listed. I will pick and choose, since I am not an expert on the "psychological" terms he gave.

First the word CULT:

THE DEFINITION THIEME GAVE:
cult: devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for a person, principle, etc., especially when regarded as a fad: as the cult of nudism.

COMMENT:
First let's look at some definitions of the word "cult" from other sources than Thieme:

FROM RICK ROSS WEB SITE DEFINITIONS:
I include this extensive quote from the Rick Ross Institute because many who object to our contention that Thieme's teachings constitute a destructive church group do not bother to read what this site says about such groups. ~ Sistersoap

{{{Include personal comments in items below. in {{{xxx}}}. ~ Sis}}}


from:
[www.culteducation.com]

FAQs:
Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?

No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.

How is the word "cult" defined?
Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:

"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."

This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as "unorthodox or spurious." However, the most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.


{{{Note the dual nature of this statement. A group of concern here could be EITHER or BOTH to qualify as being a group of concern on this forum. }}}


BACK TO RICK ROSS' definition and comments about the word CULT:

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:

A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.
A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.



{{{I believe a case can be made for the first TWO easily for the Berachah Church in its history under the leadership of R.B.Thieme, Jr. as pastor. I have heard rumors about the third, but have no personal knowledge of the third.}}}


BACK TO RICK ROSS DEFINITION OF CULT:



Don't some groups once seen as "cults" often move more into the mainstream, becoming generally respected sects or religions?

Yes. There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.

Can hate groups or political extremists be somewhat "cultic"?

Yes. Many anti-government extremists such as the so-called "militias" and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, racist skinheads, some radical anti-abortion groups, the "Christian Identity" movement and often violent gangs, share many of the same characteristics as destructive cults; such as a "we they" mentality, black and white thinking and/or unreasonable fears about the outside world. And radical anti-government extremists and hate groups have at times isolated themselves in compounds or remote settings not unlike the Waco Davidians or Jim Jones' People's Temple.

It is important to note that historically there have also been many radical left-wing political groups such as the SLA that abducted Patty Hearst, or the National Labor Federation founded by Gino Perente, which exhibit these same cultic tendencies.

More recently the right-wing followers of Lyndon LaRouche appear to have obsessive, cult-like devotion to their leader and some have referred to this group as a "political cult".

Are all so-called "cults" unsafe and destructive?

No. Just because a group is "cultic" and its adherents are focused on unusual leaders and/or ideas is no reason to call them unsafe or destructive. There are groups centered on seemingly strange spiritualists, radical political concepts, the supposed power of crystals, UFO's, witchcraft or "Satanism," that may appear eccentric, but most often don't harm anyone. An unsafe or destructive group is not defined by what it believes, but by what it does. That is, the behavior that causes harm and injury to the members of the group and/or others in society.


{{{HOWEVER in Thieme's case, most of the destructive characteistics typical of his teachings and practice come from WHAT HE TEACHES and therefore what his followers believe.}}}


What are the characteristics of a destructive "cult" or group?

Margaret Singer, clinical psychologist and once Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley was the preeminent cult expert of the 20th Century. She counseled and/or interviewed thousands of people affected by controversial groups often called "cults." Dr. Singer offered meaningful definitions of unsafe groups or "cults" in her book Cults in our Midst.

According to Singer, unsafe groups or cults can generally be defined by three factors:

The origin of the group and role of the leader.

The power structure, or relationship between the leader and the followers.

The use of a coordinated program of persuasion, which is called thought reform [or more commonly, 'brainwashing'"].

What typifies an unsafe group or "cult's" leadership and structure?

Again, a good working understanding has been provided by Margaret Singer: "In most cases, there is one person, typically the founder at the top...decision making centers in him or her." Illustrating the structure Singer says, "imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top and the followers are all at the bottom". There is little if any accountability and as Singer says, "the overriding philosophy...is that the ends justify the means, a view that allows [such groups] to establish their own brand of morality, outside normal society bounds".


{{{This structure is certainly true of Thieme and his church, and of most of his clone churches which imitate him and follow his teachings.}}}


What specifically would define a group or "cult" as unsafe?

Unsafe groups or "cults" often abuse and exploit their members. This abuse may occur in the areas of finances, physical labor, child abuse and neglect, medical neglect, sexual exploitation and/or psychological and emotional abuse.


{{{The most outstanding abuse typical of Thieme and related groups would be emotional and psychological in my own estimation. Was it physically abusive to demand attendance at every Bible Class and a daily tape for those too far away to attend class personally? It sure is if you claim that God will hurt you for not fulfilling these requirements, and Thieme made it abundantly clear that GOD WOULD KILL YOU if you LEFT HIS TEACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD, known as "Bible Doctrine" in his groups. He also claimed that God was holding up this nation by means of the FEW SPIRITUALLY MATURE BELIEVERS who followed his teachings, and that if you left his teaching, you were not only risking your own life you were endangering your country's existence, too.}}}


Extreme examples of destructive behavior have been historically recorded in such groups as the Waco Davidians, the cult suicides of "Heaven's Gate" and the Solar Temple of Switzerland and the suicide/murder of almost one thousand members of the Peoples Temple ordered by Jim Jones. In 1995 the Japanese cult known as Aum, the followers of Shoko Asahara, gassed the subways of Tokyo with the deadly poison gas sarin, killing twelve and injuring thousands of citizens. Perhaps the most deaths ever caused by a single cult in modern history can be attributed to the "Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments" of Uganda. Shortly after the turn of the century 780 bodies were found after a reign of terror that included murder and possibly mass suicide. But due to the isolated circumstances of the group many believe all the bodies will never be recovered, placing the actual loss of life much higher, possibly greater than Jonestown.



{{{We can see that much was omitted in the definition of cult Thieme listed in this glossary. It is also true of the occasional definitions of "cult" offered by defenders of Thieme who post in the Thieme thread under Destructive Churches.}}}

To be continued,
~ Sistersoap

R.B.THIEME JR'S ARTICLE LIST OF DEFINITIONS FOLLOWING ARTICLE
GATE 9: PSYCHOPATHIC ARROGANCE

My comments below in {{{xxx}}}.

THIEME'S DEFINITION FOR THE WORD

fragmented life:
Every believer has an old-sin-nature, therefore, by analogy, every believer is a walking hand grenade. The grenade is the old-sin-nature, and the pin of the grenade is negative volition. The moment the believer makes a choice to succumb to the influence of his old-sin-nature, he has pulled the pin on the grenade, causing it to explode, and thereby fragmenting his life. The fragmented life is clearly evident by noting the form(s) of arrogance manifested by the believer in his varied life situations. The form(s) of fragmentation move in the direction of the believer’s old-sin-nature’s trend--either asceticism or lasciviousness. The fragmented life produces immediate involvement in either cosmic dynasphere #1 or cosmic dynasphere #2 and produces immediate entrance into reversionism.

"Every believer has an old-sin-nature,"


{{{That is a highly debatable assertion. I happen to be convinced that this is not biblically true, but it is a highly popular teaching witnin many Christian churches and groups. The Bible says that a Christian has been BORN ANEW, at which time, ALL THINGS HAVE BECOME NEW. It also says that the old nature was CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST, and was BURIED with him, and NOT RESURRECTED when Christ was resurrected from the grave.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

" therefore, by analogy, every believer is a walking hand grenade. The grenade is the old-sin-nature, and the pin of the grenade is negative volition"


{{{This is a sadly typical description of the believer which is popular in many churches, but Thieme takes it to an extreme by saying the "negative volition" is the pin, which being removed, causes catastrophic consequences in the believer's life. "Negative volition" to Thieme means not believing everything he teaches in Bible Class. Thus the believer is his own worst enemy from the very beginning of his spiritual journey. He has a conflict built into him which can explode into disaster at any moment. This teaching causes a built in instablitiy in the life of all who believe this. I do not believe this is a biblical truth to be accepted. The Apostle Paul certainly puts the "old man" in the grave, and leaves it there. Why should we believe otherwise, no matter who the human teacher of this doctrine is? Many otherwise fine teachers teach this divided reality in the life of the Christian, and it cannot be supported by the identity of the believer with Christ in His crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection! Let what God buried stay there in the tomb. But this belief as one of the foundations of Thieme's teachings can be blamed for much of the ill that his overall teaching creates in his followers. Indwelt by two opposite natures is a sure way to create failure in the spiritual life, for it undermines confidence in the finality of Christ's work upon the Cross, and His victory in His Resurrection. The Influence in the MIND of the old way of life remains, but this is not the same as having TWO NATURES WITHIN. One can have only ONE NATURE at a time. The believer in Christ has had his OLD NATURE CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST, and he was RAISED WITH CHRIST by the power of God with an ENTIRELY NEW MAN, with the Life of Christ Himself indwelling him as the NEW CREATION God intends for him to be. Learning to walk in that truth is a matter of growth and development in the truth.}}}


THIEME'S TERM "LOCKED IN ARROGANCE"

locked-in arrogance: locked-in arrogance is an attitude of arrogance as opposed to an arrogant blip on the screen (infrequent manifestations of arrogant behavior).


{{{I am sorry....a "blip" on the screen....How scientific is that? So occasional arrogance is allowed, but not an attitude.}}}


neurosis: (The definition of this term is controversial as the world would attempt to define it, therefore, the following definition is one that is selected from among the world’s definitions that most closely defines the term from a doctrinal point of view.) An unconscious conflict that arouses anxiety and leads to maladaptive use of defense mechanisms that result in symptom formation. TREAT: Psychotherapy, tranquilizers, and sedatives. It must be remembered that in general, a symptom due to a neurotic reaction to a situation is just as real to the patient as if it were due to organic disease. Usually such a symptom is more difficult to treat than it would be if due to organic disease.

Note: This last sentence is extremely important to our understanding. The world is acknowledging that it is far more difficult to recover from locked-in arrogance than it is to deal with manic-depression whose etiology is a lithium imbalance.


{{{The world is doing no such thing. Thieme is inserting his term "locked in arrogance" into the "world's" definition, and he does the same thing with his vocabulary and categories inserting them into the text of Scripture instead of deriving them FROM Scripture.}}}

To be continued...
~ Sistersoap

LAST COMMENTS ON THE LIST OF DEFINITIONS ABOVE:

We could probably bat back and forth details of the definitions which Thieme gave above, but my main point is that most of this is irrelevant to the Bible. The Bible says little or nothing about these subjects and recognizes only Scripture and the "cure of souls" for problems of living for the believer.

Psychological practitioners have infiltrated the church with the full cooperation of many pastors who gave up this function of the burden bearing gifts God gives to the Church, the Body of Christ. Many pastors have defaulted this to "experts" with psychological degrees. Being impressed with their "expertise" Thieme has taken some of their literature and found a nest for it in his system instead of deriving all his teaching stricly from the bible itself.

In general, this entire article began with ONE VERSE of James. One verse compared to pages and pages of 'BIBLE DOCTRINE" TEACHING.

The ratio of Bible to non Bible content is very telling.

Sistersoap

ADDENDUM TO THIEME VOCABULARY

IMPERSONAL LOVE

I doubted the wisdom of Thieme's choice of terminology IMPERSONAL LOVE/PERSONAL LOVE.

I believe it is unwise and misleading to the listener to use IMPERSONAL LOVE regarding God's love for the human being as well as the human's love (saved human) for God or anyone else. Since all involved are PERSONAL BEINGS it is confusing to use terms that ignore or downgrade the PERSONAL part of the nature of either God or man.

IN searching at random on the search engine Yahoo provides, I came up with some esoteric results that were surprising to me in this regard. I had entered the words IMPERSONAL LOVE and received the following items among others:

[www.biblenews1.com]

AUTHOR Larry Wood

Revised December 8, 2004
[search.yahoo.com]

Golden Precepts of Esotericism - Chapter 5

Impersonal love is lovely, beautiful, and has no ... Impersonal love is divine. ... Impersonal love asks no reward, it gives all and therefore gives itself. ...
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/goldprec/gp-5.htm - Cached
Theosophy and Spirituality - On Personal and Impersonal - Dane Rudhyar ...
... of Dane Rudhyar's early articles - On Personal and


INteresting that THEOSOPHY also uses the terms PERSONAL/IMPERSONAL LOVE and highly praises the term IMPERSONAL LOVE.


~ Sistersoap



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2008 09:14AM by sistersoap.

To Sister:

Dr. Chafer does speak of Divine love working through and experienced by the human heart, but that the human heart cannot produce Divine love. Vol. 7, Page 230

There are many many more references to love in Chafer's Systematic Theology, but Dr. Chafer never uses the term "impersonal love".

So the term "impersonal love" is a Thieme creation/imagnation.


Truthtesty

Hi Testy,
It is a matter of his determination to impose his inventions in vocabulary and categories INTO SCRIPTURE rather than deriving his teaching entirely from Scripture. Which is the way it ought to be.

If you want to preach things that are not in the Bible, go ahead! But clearly distinguish what is Bible and what is YOUR OPINION, or the words and opinions of other men.

Do not mix them, nor pass off opinion for Bible Doctrine!

Sis

Hi Sister,

You should do that. However, Dr. Chafer does an excellent job of letting people know what he thinks versus countless different theories of other men in Systematic Theology. Dr. Chafer doesn't pretend to be the champion of some great theologian of the past and then teaches the opposite, as Thieme does.

Don't be confuse Thieme with Chafer. Thieme has given Dr. Chafer a bad "rap", by quoting Chafer so much. Yet Thieme teaches the direct opposite of Chafer in many cases, including most importantly the Shed Blood of Christ. Dr. Chafer would say Thieme teaches the satanic opposite of Chafer about the Shed Blood of Jesus.

I show the distinction between Dr. Chafer and Thieme so people can compare and contrast the facts of Dr. Chafer and Thieme's differences.


Truthtesty