To Glen:

Glenn quote: Then it seems that Truthtesty has found a critique of Col. Thieme's teaching by a Dr. Wall. I do not know Dr. Wall nor see why I am supposed to take his critique so seriously (please look up the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"). From the context of Truthtesty's post I believe that she got this next idea from Dr. Wall:

Truthtesty: Review this forum for Dr. Wall's very close association with Pastor Thieme(Thieme only has a Master's). Also Dr. Wall graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary. And? You're wrong on the second point And? I am a man. You show disrespect by presuming my gender without asking. This serves as a warning to people of your predjudiced malice and poor investigative skills. Try being logical about investigation.

Truthtesty:
Thieme doesn't even get the majority of basics right from his teacher Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer.

Glen: Okay, I guess I need to point a really "basic" thing out about this. We are protestants and Dr. L.S. Chafer is not some kind of dispensationalist Pope. So Col. Thieme's teaching digressed from his teacher's? I can point you to online forums where Southern Baptists are arguing with Southern Baptists, Calvinists with Calvinists, and Lutherans with other Lutherans. We Christians tend to debate things a lot and students will disagree with teachers.

Truthtesty: No need. What I said is true. Thieme deliberately misrepresented his sources. I have proven this many times on this forum. [forum.culteducation.com] [forum.culteducation.com] [forum.culteducation.com] [forum.culteducation.com] Truthtesty: Thieme doesn't even get the majority of basics right from his teacher Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. I have pointed out many times where Thieme deviated from "the basics" that he should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary. The many Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer quotes are there for people to "baseline reference" for what Thieme was taught (and what Thieme should have learned), thereby allowing people to see where Thieme changed from what Dr. Chafer taught Thieme. And? You might tell the whole truth by saying that Thieme referenced Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer many times throughout the years and used Dr. Chafer as support for Thieme's faulty conclusions. And? you might want to be realistic and tell the whole truth that Thieme touted his Master's degree from Dr. Chafer's Dallas Theological Seminary(on the back of every Thieme booklet) as a bases to support his own academic arrogance to intimidate Christians to submit to Thieme's conclusions instead of thier own. For What? For Thieme's Reichwing neocon propaganda brainwashing agenda. If you disagree, then would you mind explaining Thieme's statement: "And being "brainwashed" with His Thinking! (Eph_5:26-27) "

Quote
Truthtesty
To MiniMoe:

Thieme doesn't even get the majority of basics right from his teacher Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. It is you who doesn't yet see the "big picture" of what Thieme taught. I would agree that no pastor is 100% correct, but that does not justify Thieme creating a destructive cult around his personality and rhetoric.

If you disagree would you mind explaining "the basics" of The Thieme quote: And being "brainwashed" with His Thinking! (Eph_5:26-27) Christian Integrity by RB Thieme?

Would you kindly show everyone where it says "being "brainwashed" with His Thinking! in Eph_5:26-27?

Ephesians 5:25-27

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Truthtesty

How is it that you can quote "Truthtesty: Thieme doesn't even get the majority of basics right from his teacher Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. But? You leave out Thieme's obvious error? just a few sentences later? Go ahead in your predjudice for Thieme explain "being "brainwashed with His Thinking! " in Eph_5:26-27? No Thiemite has been able to explain this from scripture and only a mind controlled zombie thiemite would accept it as "Bible doctrine".

Go ahead Glen show this forum where it says "being "brainwashed" with His Thinking!" in Eph_5:26-27.

You can't.

Thieme was a sick psycopathic cult leader who coerced Christians good faith for Thieme's Reichwing Neocon brainwashing agenda.

Also, "being "brainwashed" with His Thinking!" in Eph_5:26-27 was what we found by personal investigation not by "appeal to authority"(Whatever you mean by that). We found it from Thieme's own words. We found it from the simple truth. We found it by simple logic.

So go ahead show this forum where it says "being "brainwashed" with His Thinking!" in Eph_5:26-27.


Truthtesty



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2008 11:11AM by Truthtesty.

Glenn welcome aboard.

I'm married to a taper, and there are some 'differences' that can really hurt people. I know this thread is overwhelming in length, but there are some good things to take away from it.

If you would be so kind as to read a testimony from a old member of Theime's church.

Juker Testimony on Rick Ross

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

In his,
KCjones.

Truthesty,

I do apologize for getting your gender wrong, it was an honest mistake. However, before you broadcast to the world my poor research skills you really need to spell my name right (Glenn with two n’s). I am sure that the irony won’t be lost on everyone since my name is spelled correctly in the very first quote you copied but you never seemed to notice.

So, Col. Thieme only has a Master’s degree and Dr. Wall has a doctorate. This is still a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority and it also smacks of credentialism (in the negative sense). I can find an array of different theologians from any number of denominations, all with doctorates of divinity, and you will not be able to get any two of these scholars to agree on just about anything. Degrees do not prove truth or accuracy. Doctors do not have a monopoly on truth.

You are correct that Col. Thieme did mention Dr. Chafer many times and it was obvious that Col. Thieme had a tremendous amount of respect for his former teacher. While I have not read Dr. Chafer’s eight volume systematic theology (have you?), I am willing to concede that Col. Thieme did not always follow Dr. Chafer’s teaching. I will also say that Col. Thieme was quite aware that he was in disagreement with Dr. Chafer at times. You act as if this is undercuts all of Col. Thieme’s credibility while I consider it to be normal.

I will say once again that most Protestants (and especially dispensationalists) put their trust in the scriptures (the word of God) and not in men. If we had a Pope and a magisterium then your argument would carry more weight. I wonder if L.S. Chafer ever had a disagreement with C.I. Scofield?

Truthesty, I have never heard this “brainwashed” quote you are talking about but I do have a copy of Christian Integrity at home. I will look up any sections listed in the scripture index for Ephesians 5:26-27 and see if I can find this quote. If I do, I will post it here on the forum so readers can make up their own mind.

Glenn

To the moderator,

I tried to post this response to KCJones but I timed out. It may or may not have been posted when I logged back in. If it was posted then please delete this duplicate.

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

KCJones,

I will give you my thoughts on Juker’s testimony for what they are worth. Since I have never been inside of Berachah (I’ve never been in Houston for that matter) I cannot comment on what went on at the church itself.

I might as well give you some more detail on my background as a taper. My parents began listening to Col. Thieme in 1968 when I was seven years old. At the time they were members of a Baptist congregation and were dissatisfied with it and all other church options available to them. As just about any taper will tell you, we were soon listening to the tapes seven days a week, 365 days a year. My sister and I listened along with our parents every day and this continued until we left home. In the last few years I have began listening to his son (Bobby Thieme) and another dispensational teacher on my mp3 player while commuting to work. My sister doesn’t listen any more and she does not attend church either but I do not blame this on Col. Thieme. My parents listened to Col. Thieme until the late 1990s when he got so abrasive that they stopped listening. However, they continue to study his publications and have a very high opinion of him (Note: A high opinion of him is not the same thing as worshipping at his feet).

I would also like to mention that my parents were looking for a ministry like his before they found it. My parents are no nonsense kind of people. I was taught before we ever learned of Berachah to look a person in the eye, give a firm handshake, and be straight with them. Anyone who was not like that we were taught to distrust. When my parents found Col. Thieme’s ministry he fit in with what they already believed, it seemed like a natural fit (and it probably was).

I think Juker has some good points and others just seem borne of frustration. If you have listened to Col. Thieme you will understand that he had (he isn’t dead yet but, since he has Alzheimer’s, the man on the tapes is no longer with us) a very strong personality. A lot of people in this forum seem to see that as an all-around bad thing while I see it as cutting both ways (sometimes good and sometimes bad). Because of that strong personality people will either love him or hate him and Juker does not seem to love him:-).

I suppose the first thing I will mention is the demands on our time that listening seven days a week placed on us. It was hard on my sister and I, it put us under a lot of pressure at times, and it tended to isolate us. In retrospect I think that my parents would handle things differently if they had it all to do over again. Of course we had a lot more flexibility since we could listen to a tape any time that was convenient and my parents could have sent us outside to play while they listened. I don’t have any regrets over the biblical training I received via the tapes.

It is very apparent to anyone who listens to Col. Thieme that he does indeed put a lot of emphasis on the military. He considers it, rightly I believe, to be the protector of our freedoms. I cannot speak as to how Berachah was decorated with military emblems but it would not surprise me. I also don’t think this is a problem. One of the things that he taught was that we must be loyal to scripture and not tradition. As long as something (like hanging pictures of members of the church who were airborne rangers) is not prohibited by scripture then he felt free to try and start that as a (non-sacred) tradition. I would have to see the display myself to know what I would think of it.

When Juker talks about his friend who blames his families’ dysfunction on Berachah and Col. Thieme I don’t know if that is a fair criticism. I have never known of a church that did not have dysfunctional families and they all cannot be blamed on the church. It is impossible for me to say what happened to this friend’s family was or was not the fault of Col. Thieme’s ministry. All I can say is that I don’t believe my family to have been dysfunctional and, thinking back on some of my school mates families, I think we were better than most.

As for Juker’s ten (actually twelve) things he finds wrong with his ministry, I agree with some of Juker’s points but most I don’t. I found the following things to be annoying at times:

- He could be very abrasive and condescending at times.
- He came from a very wealthy family (and was disinherited for joining the ministry) and could have a snotty aristocratic air about him.
- He could often be disrespectful to woman. Whenever he would disrespectful my sister would call him a macho s***head.

As for the twelve disagreements I will quickly say my piece and be done with it:

1. I disagree with him on this one; I believe that the privacy of the priesthood is a legitimate principle. It is speculation on his part that Col. Thieme was self-centered in teaching this. One of the reasons that my parents liked listening to tapes was that it kept us away from the legalist in so many of those “friendly” churches out there. My perspective is different than his probably because of my experiences. Here are a couple of stories to illustrate:

A woman we bought milk from (we lived in a rural area) was a widow and had a limited income. One day a couple of deacons from her Lutheran church showed up with an estimate of her income that they had worked up. According to their “guesstimate” she was not tithing her 10% and they wanted all of what they were due. I believe that she signed some document when she joined the church pledging 10% and, if she didn’t cough the money up, they were prepared to take legal action.

My brother-in-law attended a Baptist church for a couple month’s until one of the dear brothers in the congregation walked up to him and told him to shave his beard off. My brother-in-law will never even enter another Baptist church.

If this is Christian friendliness you all can have it!

2. The gates of arrogance were indeed too convoluted. Col. Thieme was too fond of psychology and I think he merged what he found in the scriptures with state of the art psychobabble of the time.

3. Right pastor is another one where I will side with Col. Thieme on. Very few thinking Christians will deny that God has a plan for their lives. Different theologies will has variations on this but it is not uncommon. To say that God has a plan for my life and provides me with food, shelter, family, and friends but has not bothered to provide me with spiritual food and shelter (aka our church) makes no sense to me.

4. Col. Thieme did discourage his congregation from studying the Bible independently much more than he should have. That being said, God has given some men the gift of pastor-teacher for a reason and that we cannot replace that kind of teaching by just reading the Bible on our own.

I have been involved in religious discussions on the internet with people from many different denominations and backgrounds. All I can say is that if all you do is self study the Bible and then get into a discussion with these fellow Christians they will wipe up the floor with you. It may feel good to self-teach but if you run into someone who is a little knowledgeable of Luther’s or Calvin’s theology, they will clean your theological clock.

5. In this point he accuses Col. Thieme of being antagonistic to evangelism and missions work. This is a delusional criticism.

6. His claim that Col. Thieme was not an expert on the original languages is a little hard to believe. I cannot prove that he was and Juker cannot prove that he wasn’t.

The story about his friend going into Col. Thieme’s office and expecting him to provide an explanation of his understanding of certain greek syntax does not convince me one way or the other. I have found blog posts around the internet that go something like this: “I contacted Dr. So-and-so (famous theologian) and asked him to explain this issue to me. He wrote one reply to me but when I pressed him for more information he would not respond. I don’t think he knows what he is talking about.” I really hope that Col. Thieme did not have the kid escorted out of the church by security but the story itself does not tell me anything.

7. Saying that Col. Thieme taught against water baptism so he wouldn’t have to touch “the masses” is silly. He never wanted anyone to add baptism to faith as a condition of salvation (which some churches do). My wife’s grandmother (my wife was raised Roman Catholic) worried until the day she died that her miscarried babies would spend eternity in hell because they were never baptized. I believe that water baptism is optional for the believer.

8. Saying that confession of sin (rebound) gives believers license to sin is a common gripe that goes all the way back to the reformation. At that time the Catholic Church argued that if we are saved by faith with no works or acts of contrition then the reformers were giving people the green light to sin as they please. I have heard this debated many times and it is still contentious. Believe what you will and I will believe what I will.

9. Well, on this one Juker seems to be a little unfocused. I don’t think I agree with whatever his point is here.

10. I agree, the terms super grace and ultra super grace are made up. I am not sure that he had strong support for all of this. On the other hand, I do believe that we are supposed to grow in grace and knowledge while here on earth. I do not have a problem with his creating vocabulary to describe our progressive sanctification as long as the concepts underlying that vocabulary are doctrinal.

11. I do think that Col. Thieme would get distracted at times and he would spend an entire hour talking about the Battle of Waterloo. I must admit I would enjoy breaks such as these because it was a respite from the tons of doctrinal points he would dish out on a regular basis.

12. Personal invective and sour grapes. Suffice it to say that Col. Thieme was not Juker’s right pastor.

Juker just seems bitter to me. I am sure he feels he has good cause to feel that way. A lot of what he says is an emotional appeal and it doesn’t grab me. If it really struck a chord with me I guess I would feel differently.

My guess is that this answered some, but not all, of your questions. Please let me know if there are any details or opinions on this that I missed.

Glenn

Truthtesty,

Well, your Col. Thieme quote does not appear in Christian Integrity. The only reference to Ephesians 5:25-27 occurs in the following paragraph:

When Christ ascended to heaven, after perfectly accomplishing His mission on earth, He was rewarded with this third patent of royalty from the Father (Eph. 1:20-23). For the first time our Lord possessed a royal title with no royal family. To establish a royal family for Christ's new aristocracy, God interrupted the Age of Israel and inserted the Age of the Church. Designated the "body of Christ" (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:12), the "bride of Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph 5:25-27; Rev 19:6-8), and implied in the vocatives "beloved" and "bretheren," the Church is His third royal family. Everyone who believes in Christ during the Church Age simultaneously becomes a member of the royal family of God forever and has access to the complete divine dynasphere.

Christian Integrity
pp 11-12
R.B. Thieme, Jr

No mention of "brainwashing" here.

Glenn

To Glen:

Glen: Truthesty, I have never heard this “brainwashed” quote you are talking about but I do have a copy of Christian Integrity at home. I will look up any sections listed in the scripture index for Ephesians 5:26-27 and see if I can find this quote. If I do, I will post it here on the forum so readers can make up their own mind.

Truthtesty: Oh come on! Do you see anywhere where it says "being "brainwashed" with His Thinking!" in Eph_5:26-27?

It is real simple. Shake my hand and look me in the eye , do you see it yes or no?

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

You have a choice to defend the Word of God or defend the words of Thieme. What is it going to be thiemite?

Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2008 10:07AM by Truthtesty.

To Glenn:

Look again. It is under "COMPONENTS OF COMPLETED HAPPINESS" Christian Integrity by R. B. Thieme jr

Thieme quote: Sharing the happiness of God is a result of knowing God! And being "brainwashed" with His Thinking! (Eph_5:26-27)


Truthtesty

To Glen:

Glenn quote: Then it seems that Truthtesty has found a critique of Col. Thieme's teaching by a Dr. Wall. I do not know Dr. Wall nor see why I am supposed to take his critique so seriously (please look up the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"). From the context of Truthtesty's post I believe that she got this next idea from Dr. Wall:

Truthtesty: Review this forum for Dr. Wall's very close association with Pastor Thieme(Thieme only has a Master's). Also Dr. Wall graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary. And? You're wrong on the second point And? I am a man. You show disrespect by presuming my gender without asking. This serves as a warning to people of your predjudiced malice and poor investigative skills. Try being logical about investigation.

Quote
Truthtesty
To Glen:

Glen: Truthesty, I have never heard this “brainwashed” quote you are talking about but I do have a copy of Christian Integrity at home. I will look up any sections listed in the scripture index for Ephesians 5:26-27 and see if I can find this quote. If I do, I will post it here on the forum so readers can make up their own mind.

Truthtesty: Oh come on! Do you see anywhere where it says "being "brainwashed" with His Thinking!" in Eph_5:26-27?

It is real simple. Shake my hand and look me in the eye , do you see it yes or no?

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

You have a choice to defend the Word of God or defend the words of Thieme. What is it going to be thiemite?

Truthtesty

So the choice remains will you defend the Word of God or the words of Thieme?

Again make a careful investigation before answering.


Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2008 06:15AM by Truthtesty.

To Glenn:

Glenn quote: Here at the end of the posts it apears that poster Truthtesty has been dominating as of late and a lot of it is overwrought. I picked out two of her (I apologize if Truthtesty is actually a he) statements but could have picked many more.
First quote:

Truthtesty

Another "basic" area where Thieme's cult indoctrination dysfunctionalizes the Christian, is anger. Thieme categorizes anger as a "metal attitude" sin.

There is no Ten commandment that states "Thou shalt not be angry".

The Bible simply says "Ephesians 4:26 "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:"

Glenn quote: Wow! Once again it took me all of five minutes to track down the Scripture Menu site which has a nice section listing scripture about anger. Yes, the Ephesians 4:26 quote was there but so were these:

Be not quick in your spirit to become angry,for anger lodges in the bosom of fools.

—Ecclesiastes 7:9

Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath!
Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil.

—Psalm 37:8

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

—Ephesians 4:26-27, 31-32


To quote the Spaniard from the Princess Bride: "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Truthtesty:

This is not a children's forum. You should check with the moderator for age requirement for this forum.

It never says anger is a sin. It says refrain from it, but it doesn't say forsake it. It says "be not quick in your spirit to become angry", because to be quick to anger is foolish. It says "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you" meaning it is going to happen, but let it be put away from you. Something Thieme should have practiced towards fellow liberal Christians, which he never did as far as an objective person can tell. And finally, it says "Ephesians 4:26 "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath". Meaning in your anger, do not sin and do not let it turn to wrath and deal with it before you go to sleep. Which to categorize anger as a sin then the sentence would have read in effect "In your sin, sin not". Does that make sense? Not to me. The protestant Christian's method of handling sin is "in your sin, repent and sin not." I don't see where it says repent in Ephesians 4:26. The clear inference in Ephesians 4:26 is that anger is not a sin and when you do get angry, don't sin.

Ephesians 4:26 makes perfect sense for counseling repressed anger, because you learn to express anger in healthy ways in which no one gets hurt.

How's the anger working for you about your frustration of finding out Thieme actually did write "And being brainwashed" with His thinking!"? No one got hurt did they? or did they?

Overwrought? no lol overwrought is "brainwashed with His thinking". Way overwrought.


Truthtesty



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2008 01:20PM by Truthtesty.

To Glenn,


Glenn quote: Truthesty,
So, Col. Thieme only has a Master’s degree and Dr. Wall has a doctorate. This is still a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority and it also smacks of credentialism (in the negative sense).

Truthtesty: Why am I not surprised that you are presenting the facts backwards? It was Thieme who ran around pushing his Master's degree in every Christian's face, and telling them they can't get much out of studying the Bible for themselves, and coercing them out of thier own faith in thier own conclusions and relationship with the Holy Spirit.. It was Thieme referencing and appealing to his own credentials. It was Thieme trying to appeal to Thieme's credentials. The mere fact that Dr. Wall surpassed Thieme's studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, while it is upsetting to Thieme's claim of credibility, is just a mere fact. Dr. Wall's critique has helped many thiemites recover from Thieme's abuse. In just a basic sense it is a "second opinion". For you to out and out claim that Dr. Wall's critique is in someway is an "appeal to authority" shows your own lack of logical processing of reality and fondness for labeling in pretense of logic (which Thieme trained thiemites to do. A show of false arrogant academia in pretense that there is somehow logic underneath, but there isn't. It' is a false claim.)

Glenn quote: I can find an array of different theologians from any number of denominations, all with doctorates of divinity, and you will not be able to get any two of these scholars to agree on just about anything.

Truthesty: Not all theologians who disagree, create cults.

Glenn quote: Degrees do not prove truth or accuracy.

Truthesty: Nor have you.

Glenn quote: Doctors do not have a monopoly on truth.

Truthesty: Nor do you.

Glenn quote: You are correct that Col. Thieme did mention Dr. Chafer many times and it was obvious that Col. Thieme had a tremendous amount of respect for his former teacher.

Truthesty: Although Thieme cheesed Dr. Chafer's work in public, Thieme did not show respect For Dr. Chafer in reality, because if Thieme had? then Thieme would not have misrepresented Dr. Chafer for over 35 years.

Glenn quote: While I have not read Dr. Chafer’s eight volume systematic theology (have you?),

Truthesty: Most of it.

Glenn quote: I am willing to concede that Col. Thieme did not always follow Dr. Chafer’s teaching. I will also say that Col. Thieme was quite aware that he was in disagreement with Dr. Chafer at times. You act as if this is undercuts all of Col. Thieme’s credibility while I consider it to be normal.

Truthesty: Where? Where did Thieme ever say he deviated from Dr. Chafer? You act as if Thieme was clear when he departed from Dr. Chafer. Thieme was not clear. I never saw or heard 1 example of how Thieme admitted to departing from Dr. Chafer. One such example of Thieme claiming false support is from a previous thiemite who still believed that the Blood of Jesus as Thieme taught it originated at Dallas Theological Smeinary, which? it didn't originate at Dallas Theological Seminary, because Thieme created it himself:

"genez quote
Quote:
The Blood of Christ as Thieme taught it, originated at DTS. [forum.culteducation.com]

I then proved to genez that he was believing a falsehood. Can you imagine that after 35 years that a so-called "Christian" pastor, would still be misrepresenting the truth? For who's service?

Thieme used Dr. Chafer(and others) as support for Thieme's false cultic conclusions, and never admitted that Thieme falsified Thieme's sources until forced to do so, as in the Dr. Walvoord case: (again same page) [forum.culteducation.com]



Truthtesty



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2008 02:40PM by Truthtesty.