Critique - Per Dr. Wall's Doctoral dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary
[i:0f0809152a]One's first reaction to this extremely complex analysis of the maturity process is that it is totally absurd, and that Thieme must not be serious -- but apparently he is serious.[/i:0f0809152a] After making some observations about the difference between human wisdom and divine wisdom and about the significance of the term epignosis, [b:0f0809152a]he begins to believe his own detailed description of the soul and spirit and to push it to extremes far beyond any biblical teaching[/b:0f0809152a]. [u:0f0809152a][i:0f0809152a][b:0f0809152a]One striking characteristic of Thieme's in-depth analysis in this area is the almost total absence of sound exegesis.[/b:0f0809152a][/i:0f0809152a][/u:0f0809152a] The statement in James 1:21 concerning the implanted word emphuton logon) is expanded without any exegetical basis to describe four of Thieme's own categories of production. A brief reference to Peter's reminding of believers to remember certain doctrines is supposed to be a sufficient biblical base for the concept of the memory center "valves." Although it is proper to observe the special emphasis that the term epignosis has, Thieme has overstated the distinctions between gnosis and epignosis. Knowledge (gnosis) does not have the highly technical sense employed by Thieme. It is used of the knowledge in the mind of God (Rom.11:33), and it is also used of one of the building blocks in the structuring of Christian character in 2 Peter 1:5 (Here the term seems more in keeping with Thieme's concept of epignosis.). It is probably best to take the term gnosis to refer to knowledge in general, including at times epignosis; epignosis does, however, seem to have a more specialized use: Christian knowledge which “carries with it a corresponding manner of life.” [b:0f0809152a]There are two primary problems with Thieme's concept of the process of growth (the function of GAP)[/b:0f0809152a]. First, [b:0f0809152a]it demands a view of the pastor-teacher that is not in keeping with the biblical statements nor with the biblical mentality[/b:0f0809152a]. This will be discussed further in the next chapter. Second,[b:0f0809152a] the entire process that Thieme propounds can be reduced to one phrase: Be positive toward and believe what is taught. Not only does this concept dangerously produce a blind dependency on a pastor-teacher, but it fails to encompass the clear scriptural pattern for growth. Paul's classic passage on spiritual maturity, Ephesians 4, indicates two aspects of the process that Thieme has overlooked.[/b:0f0809152a] [b:0f0809152a]First, verse 16 teaches that spiritual growth takes place through the contact and interaction of the members of the body of Christ, as every spiritual gift in the body functions and ministers to other gifts. Second, the subject of "speaking the truth in love" in verse 15 is "we." In the context this means the whole body of believers. Not only does the process of spiritual maturity involve all of the members of the body ministering to one another, but the biblical pattern requires application of truth, not only as a result of maturity but as a part of the process of growing itself. Christ taught that a volitional decision to obey God's will would result in discernment (John 7:17). He also taught that the building of our spiritual house and its stability depends upon acting upon the teachings of Christ (Matt. 7:24-27). Also the writer of Hebrews taught that a key element in spiritual maturity is the discernment between good and evil, and he indicated that practical exercise (hexin) was necessary to develop mature discernment. The maturing process is not sitting under a particular, authoritative pastor-teacher every night of the week and responding with positive faith. It is the loving communication of the truths of God's Word by all of the members of the body, expressing the particular illumination that the Holy Spirit gives to each person in accordance with his particular gift. The pastor-teacher and the evangelist(Eph. 4:1 lb) are to equip the saints (all believers) with the tools for personal Bible study and application; the saints, in turn, carry out the work of service for the purpose of building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). Each individual Christian grows as he responds to the truth so communicated to him. That response includes both attitude changes and overt actions. [u:0f0809152a][i:0f0809152a]Thieme's GAP approach is totally off-balanced. Not only does it fail to enhance true spiritual growth, it actually can inhibit true growth by giving the believer a false sense of maturity, not unlike the "puffed up" believer in I Corinthians 8: 1[/i:0f0809152a][/u:0f0809152a].[/b:0f0809152a]

Quote

he begins to believe his own detailed description of the soul and spirit and to push it to extremes far beyond any biblical teaching

Although Thieme states not to confuse the message with the man, Thieme confused himself with the message.

Truthtesty

Per Dr. Wall's Doctoral dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary

Quote

21 For example, Thieme's personal prejudices against blacks (described as “melanoderms”) and Chicanos comes out dogmatically in his teaching. Note magnetic tape reproductions of messages preached at Berachah Church: "Philippians 4:4," 22 February 1976; "Genesis 14:10," 21 September 1976; "Genesis 15:5," 8 October 1976; "Genesis 15:6," 10 October 1976.

Quote

[u:a8e8a63bce]A significant problem involved in Thieme's teaching on evil is his exegetical approach to the Hebrew and Greek words for evil.[/u:a8e8a63bce] For example, Thieme stretches the point to call "evil" in Genesis 15:20 "satanic policy." In this case "evil" clearly carries with it a common connotation of harm. [b:a8e8a63bce]It is also an application of his weak methodology when Thieme concludes that Romans 13:3, 4 teaches that the laws of divine establishment protect the believer and the human race from evil [/b:a8e8a63bce](i.e. Satan's policy in the world). The passage is talking about governmental authorities, and evil refers to harm done to people living under these authorities. [b:a8e8a63bce]It also seems that Thieme has forced his political prejudices on the Scriptures under the guise of the doctrine of evil. For example, he claims that Israel's "waiting for good" in Micah 1:12 involved ignoring the word of God and waiting for socialism. 141 Keil and Delitzsch clarify what the phrase actually means in its context: The inhabitants of Maroth writhe (chalah, from chul, to writhe with pain, like a woman in childbirth), because they are also smitten with the calamity, when it comes down to Jerusalem. Letov, "on account of the good," which they have lost, or are about to lose.142 In other words, the thrust of the passage is not that the people of Maroth were evil for waiting for socialism, but that they were waiting as one writhing in pain on account of the loss of the good.[/b:a8e8a63bce]

Quote

[i:a8e8a63bce][u:a8e8a63bce][b:a8e8a63bce]Finally it was shown that his analysis of what he calls "divine establishment" and the place of the military appears to be more of an expression of Thieme's own personal opinions and political and social prejudices, rather than the product of consistent, sound exegesis.[/b:a8e8a63bce][/u:a8e8a63bce][/i:a8e8a63bce] This has resulted in an unbalanced view of social justice and freedom, an unwarranted description of the United States as a priest nation, and an overemphasis on the role of the military.

Per Testy: These are just a few examples. Thieme was SUBJECTIVELY PREDJUDICED WHEN HE TAUGHT INSTEAD OF SOUNDLY EXEGETICAL.

AGAIN The definition of objective (Merriam-Webster) [m-w.com]

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived [b:a8e8a63bce]without distortion by[/b:a8e8a63bce] personal feelings, [b:a8e8a63bce]prejudices[/b:a8e8a63bce], or interpretations



Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty


Per Testy: These are just a few examples. Thieme was SUBJECTIVELY PREDJUDICED WHEN HE TAUGHT INSTEAD OF SOUNDLY EXEGETICAL.

AGAIN The definition of objective (Merriam-Webster) [m-w.com]

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived [b:e0cfa0915c]without distortion by[/b:e0cfa0915c] personal feelings, [b:e0cfa0915c]prejudices[/b:e0cfa0915c], or interpretations



Truthtesty

By the looks of what you said about Christianity at the History Channel Forum? I have no idea how you could even begin to verify if what Dr. Wall's work is sound. You have no means. :lol:

Oh well........ GeneZ

[u:80e2c49cf2][b:80e2c49cf2]BEING PREDJUDICED IS BEING SUBJECTIVE.

BEING PREDJUDICED IS ALSO JUDGING OTHERS.[/b:80e2c49cf2][/u:80e2c49cf2]

TRUTHTESTY

Genez

You mean Thieme has no means. If your going to judge me, then judge Thieme too.

Truthtesty

Genez

By the way your quite the little chicken aren't you? At least I have the guts to own up. Your 1st reaction at being caught doing something wrong was

Quote

I do not know what that is from. Since you do not give the forum and post? I have no idea. Do a search. [b:6d1a4c523e]There is more than one GeneZ, out there.[/b:6d1a4c523e] If you refuse to give a link? I have no idea what that's about. I have no idea if it has not been edited, either.

I could have said something similar, but I didn't. Your just yellow.

So while your judging me, judge Thieme and yourself too. That's probably the way you live your whole life in denial and running.

One more thing, I am not Dr. Wall so judge him separately from me.

Truthtesty

Hello Truth Testy,
First to all readers, you must realize in Dr. Walls study in the forward (the first thing you read) portrays this statement:

“A balanced and fair evaluation of the extensive teachings of Robert Thieme has been overdue. The writer of this volume has achieved a balance between proper recognition of the good qualities of the teaching ministry of Colonel Robert B. Thieme and at the same time a candid evaluation and critique.”

In the next portion we have the preface where the author is a personal acquaintance of Thieme, this is an implied friendship here, or at least a relative figuring that due to this the author has a personal insight into the man’s doctrines due to this 20 year acquaintance:
“The author, a native Houstonian, has been personally acquainted with Bob
Thieme for twenty years.”

A note here…A friend does not do anything to destroy or directly contradict a friends work, as well, a Pastor should not go out of his way to “debunk” another pastors teachings. He will inform his congregation directly with accurate doctrine.

After the preface a background is given (please read for yourself). On page 19 we delve into a more poignant fact that there is controversy surrounding Thieme’s work! Following that we have the “response of the Christian Community” which amounts to a few scholars and several examples of how many Christian Churches have an outright ban on his teachings. They are then directly stating Thieme is a heretic. Now instead of a fair evaluation of his doctrines you… as the reader, are informed of this controversy with quotations from scholars about how bad Thieme’s doctrines are.
This is called “Skunking the Jury”. Anyone that has every watched Law and Order know this.
To top that page 20 then informs you that there are allegations that relate to Thieme’s personal life clearly not relaying any of these allegations, allowing the readers imagination to run wild. Of course, ever the Christian, Dr. Wall then proceeds to tell you that you need to ignore such things.
If this had been an unbiased study of Thieme’s teachings, neither of these so called “backgrounds” would have been included. Only the Doctrine would have been evaluated.
Throughout his “fair and balanced study” he makes direct statements that show his partiality/bias and desire to convince the reader of Theime’s twisted viewpoint. You can see that here from the first part of the quote in your post.

One's first reaction to this extremely complex analysis of the maturity process is that it is totally absurd, and that Thieme must not be serious -- but apparently he is serious.

Skunking a persons opinion of a biblical scholar is nothing knew, but realize please, that God is not going to send someone to you to “help” you learn the Truth, that uses this methodology of deception. “Oh look, I am fair and balanced when I deal with this pitiful scholar who doesn’t know what he is doing and has heretical doctrines and look! I am not the only one who thinks this!”

On to the Doctrine!
I will address just this one point on Gnosis and Epignosis. This will be enough to show that Dr. Wall’s interpretation is not Divinely inspired and does not have scriptural backing. If you want more understanding on his points, pick out the ones you feel to be the strongest and I will address those. He has a lot of… information to address on a forum.
Gnosis vs. Epignosis
Although it is proper to observe the special emphasis that the term epignosis has, Thieme has overstated the distinctions between gnosis and epignosis.
He proceeds then to tell us how…well not yet:
Knowledge (gnosis) does not have the highly technical sense employed by Thieme.
Let me give you the strong’s definition of Gnosis:
γνῶσις gnōsis gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science
The very understanding of knowledge and science has a technical sense. Strong’s asserts that the Greek word Gnosis by implication has the connotation of science. What is science but the very technical study of the nature of a stated thing!!!! To disregard such an easy to discover understanding is blatant stupidity and lack of “objectivity” for what knowledge and science means. Anyone can pick up a Strong’s concordance and discover that Dr. Wall is in error. If he is wrong here where else may he be wrong? Lets continue:

It is used of the knowledge in the mind of God (Rom.11:33), and it is also used of one of the building blocks in the structuring of Christian character in 2 Peter 1:5 (Here the term seems more in keeping with Thieme's concept of epignosis.).

Seems more in keeping? (Notice the derogatory inability to allow for the fact that Thieme might know something) Let me now give you the definition of Epignosis:
ἐπίγνωσις epignōsis ip-ig'-no-sis
From G1921; recognition, that is, (by implication) full discernment, acknowledgement: - (ac-) knowledge (-ing, -ment).

Full discernment. The mind of God is full discernment or full knowledge. Clearly, two different concepts are relayed between Gnosis and Epignosis used in scripture. The writers of scripture understood this. It is vital in understanding this to begin to realize that God is telling you to have that epignosis in your soul!

It is probably best to take the term gnosis to refer to knowledge in general, including at times epignosis; epignosis does, however, seem to have a more specialized use: Christian knowledge which “carries with it a corresponding manner of life.”

Epignosis does not “seem” to have a more specialized use. It does have a more specialized use. This is not just Christian knowledge. This is to have the complete understanding stated in Colossians 2:2 “full riches of complete confident understanding.” To make this clear, the divinely inspired Word of God makes an allowance for this kind of attack and clearly begins to use different terminology for the same stated effect in Colossians 2:2. When you have this epignosis or complete confident understanding, you then have obtained the full riches from God. Two Greek words bring together “complete confident understanding”. I will give the strong’s for both.

πληροφορία plērophoria play-rof-or-ee'-ah
From G4135; entire confidence: - (full) assurance.
σύνεσις sunesis soon'-es-is
From G4920; a mental putting together, that is, intelligence or (concretely) the intellect: - knowledge, understanding

Now lets look at the scriptural backing of what the author of the Bible was trying to say in 2Peter.

2 Peter 3:18 uses gnosis. This is the technical understanding of what Jesus Christ accomplished through his work here on earth.
2 Peter 2:20 uses epignosis. Here the author desires you to use the full knowledge from God to escape the pollutions of the world. This is different and 2 Peter 3:18. Why the distinction? The answer lies in the word. A technical understanding of what Jesus did on earth and the cross does not give you the ability to escape from the world’s ideology. However, the full knowledge does!! That is the divine understanding that comes through the Holy Spirit. It is a power system (See previous posts for those scriptures)
Also notice I did not post all my understanding here on the divinely inspired nature of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Same way if you pick up a teaching of Thieme’s, you will not know all he knows that backs that teaching. 40 years of study cannot be summed up in a pamphlet. Nor is he expected to. You as a disciple (A mathetes in the Greek, where we get the word mathematician, is a disciplined one.) should search and study to gain that full knowledge.(See also previous post on study scriptures)
2Peter 1:8 uses epignosis. The author states if you have everything stated in verses 5-7 and they are increasing you will not cease in your continual growth in achieving that “full knowledge”.
2Peter 1:5-6 uses gnosis. In the same statement you have a separation. Why did Peter not use the same word in the same paragraph? A distinction was being made. Here virtue brings a, and a technical knowledge brings temperance. Full knowledge in 1:8 brings a functional power!
2Peter 1:3 uses gnosis. However there is the word rich in front of gnosis, he transitions this rich (ploutos) technical knowledge (gnosis) to epignosis in 1:8! This transition shows that the author desires the distinction of the functional power that a rich or full knowledge gives when a believer has “Mechanically” achieved that epignosis.

I state just this one chapter for your benefit. You can now see the scriptural understanding that it’s not just a lifestyle but also a functional power within your soul being built and described here. This exegesis cannot be glossed over as Dr. Wall has done in a few sentences. If this man was giving a truly scholarly and divinely inspired commentary on the works of Thieme why is this missed?

This is the knowledge that Thieme used in his teachings. It is a scriptural understanding of why the words were used and when they were used. It is a historical study with spiritual guidance. It is years of information built into your soul to serve as a power that God has given to those that will inherit His kingdom. He does not want ignorant children and powerless individuals to rule his kingdom.

Clearly Dr. Wall has, in just this first instance, a bias that stuns me. The bias is not only obvious it is destructive to his “objective” study of the doctrines Thieme has taught on. This is not a person inspired, directed, acting in accordance with the will of, or lead by God. God does not deceive his audience then bash people.

1st – His exegesis of the words was without understanding or insight. There is a technical connotation to gnosis and then epignosis has a vital importance when it is relayed in the word of God as His Mind. To even down play this slightly brings me to the next point.
2nd – Divine guidance and insight is vital if you wish a Christian to acknowledge your teachings
3rd – He chose to “debunk” teachings and make arbitrary attacks upon the work of Thieme. This does not meet your posted definition of “objective”.
4th – The exegesis of Greek words must be relayed in context with other passages that mirror or parallel a particular biblical principle that is being taught. When a word(s) is studied, you must look at all passages that teach the principle or concept. You cannot do that as Dr. Wall has done below:

The statement in James 1:21 concerning the implanted word emphuton logon) is expanded without any exegetical basis to describe four of Thieme's own categories of production.

5th - In no way does Thieme take only one word, verse or scriptural teaching and then base an entire breakdown of a biblical principle on that said verse. Dr. Wall implies that. He just picked up a study that lacked the scriptural support. I am certain if he asked Thieme for the notes on the study, Thieme would have given them to him. After all, they are life long buddies…
6th - I have specifically shown you passages that show Mechanical function and systematic result that the usage of these two words have. That is irrefutable.
7th - In my prior posts not only have I quoted a strong’s definition of a word, I then show the biblical principle taught throughout the scriptures.
8th - Dr. Wall had only a meager understanding to begin with, not the complete understanding from God. Then, to top that, he had a motive to refute the teachings of Thieme. What I have gleaned from Dr. Wall’s dissertation is only a cursory understanding of Thieme’s teachings. In other words (He read them once and fact checked a passage or two and poorly at that.)

In summary, again I state, grab the strongest “arguments” that you feel Dr. Wall can present and I will address them for you, so that you may have a clearer understanding of the exegetical process that Thieme uses. If you do not believe that this guy is “out to get” Thieme then you need to reread this post and just the first pages of Dr. Wall’s dissertation.

Quote
Galiban
Hello Truth Testy,
First to all readers, you must realize in Dr. Walls study in the forward (the first thing you read) portrays this statement:

“A balanced and fair evaluation of the extensive teachings of Robert Thieme has been overdue. The writer of this volume has achieved a balance between proper recognition of the good qualities of the teaching ministry of Colonel Robert B. Thieme and at the same time a candid evaluation and critique.”

In the next portion we have the preface where the author is a personal acquaintance of Thieme, this is an implied friendship here, or at least a relative figuring that due to this the author has a personal insight into the man’s doctrines due to this 20 year acquaintance:
“The author, a native Houstonian, has been personally acquainted with Bob
Thieme for twenty years.”

A note here…A friend does not do anything to destroy or directly contradict a friends work, as well, a Pastor should not go out of his way to “debunk” another pastors teachings. He will inform his congregation directly with accurate doctrine.

After the preface a background is given (please read for yourself). On page 19 we delve into a more poignant fact that there is controversy surrounding Thieme’s work! Following that we have the “response of the Christian Community” which amounts to a few scholars and several examples of how many Christian Churches have an outright ban on his teachings. They are then directly stating Thieme is a heretic. Now instead of a fair evaluation of his doctrines you… as the reader, are informed of this controversy with quotations from scholars about how bad Thieme’s doctrines are.
This is called “Skunking the Jury”. Anyone that has every watched Law and Order know this.
To top that page 20 then informs you that there are allegations that relate to Thieme’s personal life clearly not relaying any of these allegations, allowing the readers imagination to run wild. Of course, ever the Christian, Dr. Wall then proceeds to tell you that you need to ignore such things.
If this had been an unbiased study of Thieme’s teachings, neither of these so called “backgrounds” would have been included. Only the Doctrine would have been evaluated.
Throughout his “fair and balanced study” he makes direct statements that show his partiality/bias and desire to convince the reader of Theime’s twisted viewpoint. You can see that here from the first part of the quote in your post.

One's first reaction to this extremely complex analysis of the maturity process is that it is totally absurd, and that Thieme must not be serious -- but apparently he is serious.

Skunking a persons opinion of a biblical scholar is nothing knew, but realize please, that God is not going to send someone to you to “help” you learn the Truth, that uses this methodology of deception. “Oh look, I am fair and balanced when I deal with this pitiful scholar who doesn’t know what he is doing and has heretical doctrines and look! I am not the only one who thinks this!”

On to the Doctrine!
I will address just this one point on Gnosis and Epignosis. This will be enough to show that Dr. Wall’s interpretation is not Divinely inspired and does not have scriptural backing. If you want more understanding on his points, pick out the ones you feel to be the strongest and I will address those. He has a lot of… information to address on a forum.
Gnosis vs. Epignosis
Although it is proper to observe the special emphasis that the term epignosis has, Thieme has overstated the distinctions between gnosis and epignosis.
He proceeds then to tell us how…well not yet:
Knowledge (gnosis) does not have the highly technical sense employed by Thieme.
Let me give you the strong’s definition of Gnosis:
γνῶσις gnōsis gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science
The very understanding of knowledge and science has a technical sense. Strong’s asserts that the Greek word Gnosis by implication has the connotation of science. What is science but the very technical study of the nature of a stated thing!!!! To disregard such an easy to discover understanding is blatant stupidity and lack of “objectivity” for what knowledge and science means. Anyone can pick up a Strong’s concordance and discover that Dr. Wall is in error. If he is wrong here where else may he be wrong? Lets continue:

It is used of the knowledge in the mind of God (Rom.11:33), and it is also used of one of the building blocks in the structuring of Christian character in 2 Peter 1:5 (Here the term seems more in keeping with Thieme's concept of epignosis.).

Seems more in keeping? (Notice the derogatory inability to allow for the fact that Thieme might know something) Let me now give you the definition of Epignosis:
ἐπίγνωσις epignōsis ip-ig'-no-sis
From G1921; recognition, that is, (by implication) full discernment, acknowledgement: - (ac-) knowledge (-ing, -ment).

Full discernment. The mind of God is full discernment or full knowledge. Clearly, two different concepts are relayed between Gnosis and Epignosis used in scripture. The writers of scripture understood this. It is vital in understanding this to begin to realize that God is telling you to have that epignosis in your soul!

It is probably best to take the term gnosis to refer to knowledge in general, including at times epignosis; epignosis does, however, seem to have a more specialized use: Christian knowledge which “carries with it a corresponding manner of life.”

Epignosis does not “seem” to have a more specialized use. It does have a more specialized use. This is not just Christian knowledge. This is to have the complete understanding stated in Colossians 2:2 “full riches of complete confident understanding.” To make this clear, the divinely inspired Word of God makes an allowance for this kind of attack and clearly begins to use different terminology for the same stated effect in Colossians 2:2. When you have this epignosis or complete confident understanding, you then have obtained the full riches from God. Two Greek words bring together “complete confident understanding”. I will give the strong’s for both.

πληροφορία plērophoria play-rof-or-ee'-ah
From G4135; entire confidence: - (full) assurance.
σύνεσις sunesis soon'-es-is
From G4920; a mental putting together, that is, intelligence or (concretely) the intellect: - knowledge, understanding

Now lets look at the scriptural backing of what the author of the Bible was trying to say in 2Peter.

2 Peter 3:18 uses gnosis. This is the technical understanding of what Jesus Christ accomplished through his work here on earth.
2 Peter 2:20 uses epignosis. Here the author desires you to use the full knowledge from God to escape the pollutions of the world. This is different and 2 Peter 3:18. Why the distinction? The answer lies in the word. A technical understanding of what Jesus did on earth and the cross does not give you the ability to escape from the world’s ideology. However, the full knowledge does!! That is the divine understanding that comes through the Holy Spirit. It is a power system (See previous posts for those scriptures)
Also notice I did not post all my understanding here on the divinely inspired nature of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Same way if you pick up a teaching of Thieme’s, you will not know all he knows that backs that teaching. 40 years of study cannot be summed up in a pamphlet. Nor is he expected to. You as a disciple (A mathetes in the Greek, where we get the word mathematician, is a disciplined one.) should search and study to gain that full knowledge.(See also previous post on study scriptures)
2Peter 1:8 uses epignosis. The author states if you have everything stated in verses 5-7 and they are increasing you will not cease in your continual growth in achieving that “full knowledge”.
2Peter 1:5-6 uses gnosis. In the same statement you have a separation. Why did Peter not use the same word in the same paragraph? A distinction was being made. Here virtue brings a, and a technical knowledge brings temperance. Full knowledge in 1:8 brings a functional power!
2Peter 1:3 uses gnosis. However there is the word rich in front of gnosis, he transitions this rich (ploutos) technical knowledge (gnosis) to epignosis in 1:8! This transition shows that the author desires the distinction of the functional power that a rich or full knowledge gives when a believer has “Mechanically” achieved that epignosis.

I state just this one chapter for your benefit. You can now see the scriptural understanding that it’s not just a lifestyle but also a functional power within your soul being built and described here. This exegesis cannot be glossed over as Dr. Wall has done in a few sentences. If this man was giving a truly scholarly and divinely inspired commentary on the works of Thieme why is this missed?

This is the knowledge that Thieme used in his teachings. It is a scriptural understanding of why the words were used and when they were used. It is a historical study with spiritual guidance. It is years of information built into your soul to serve as a power that God has given to those that will inherit His kingdom. He does not want ignorant children and powerless individuals to rule his kingdom.

Clearly Dr. Wall has, in just this first instance, a bias that stuns me. The bias is not only obvious it is destructive to his “objective” study of the doctrines Thieme has taught on. This is not a person inspired, directed, acting in accordance with the will of, or lead by God. God does not deceive his audience then bash people.

1st – His exegesis of the words was without understanding or insight. There is a technical connotation to gnosis and then epignosis has a vital importance when it is relayed in the word of God as His Mind. To even down play this slightly brings me to the next point.
2nd – Divine guidance and insight is vital if you wish a Christian to acknowledge your teachings
3rd – He chose to “debunk” teachings and make arbitrary attacks upon the work of Thieme. This does not meet your posted definition of “objective”.
4th – The exegesis of Greek words must be relayed in context with other passages that mirror or parallel a particular biblical principle that is being taught. When a word(s) is studied, you must look at all passages that teach the principle or concept. You cannot do that as Dr. Wall has done below:

The statement in James 1:21 concerning the implanted word emphuton logon) is expanded without any exegetical basis to describe four of Thieme's own categories of production.

5th - In no way does Thieme take only one word, verse or scriptural teaching and then base an entire breakdown of a biblical principle on that said verse. Dr. Wall implies that. He just picked up a study that lacked the scriptural support. I am certain if he asked Thieme for the notes on the study, Thieme would have given them to him. After all, they are life long buddies…
6th - I have specifically shown you passages that show Mechanical function and systematic result that the usage of these two words have. That is irrefutable.
7th - In my prior posts not only have I quoted a strong’s definition of a word, I then show the biblical principle taught throughout the scriptures.
8th - Dr. Wall had only a meager understanding to begin with, not the complete understanding from God. Then, to top that, he had a motive to refute the teachings of Thieme. What I have gleaned from Dr. Wall’s dissertation is only a cursory understanding of Thieme’s teachings. In other words (He read them once and fact checked a passage or two and poorly at that.)

In summary, again I state, grab the strongest “arguments” that you feel Dr. Wall can present and I will address them for you, so that you may have a clearer understanding of the exegetical process that Thieme uses. If you do not believe that this guy is “out to get” Thieme then you need to reread this post and just the first pages of Dr. Wall’s dissertation.

Nicely done!

Interesting point. Many do not even know where to begin with the true meaning of Greek words. Yet, some will hold up the works of others (which they can not comprehend) and use it if the report follows the leanings of their bias. Happens all the time with those who wish to remain uninformed and not study a thing out for themselves.

It just so happens I once attended a Bible study given by a Catholic priest. It was given outside of the walls of the Church, in a rented hall at a community center. Funny thing is.... He never heard of Thieme. But, he taught on epignosis one night. Guess what? He must be a cult, too! For he was in agreement with essentially what Thieme teaches on this word.

This has thread has run down into a carnal game of emotionally charged antagonism which is devoid of the capacity needed to explain what would be required to answer honestly.

I came here thinking there was maybe some serious criticism by someone who understood the issues involved. But, It turns out, he is not even qualified to discern basic doctrinal teachings, for he despises Christianity. Once I realized that? I saw no need to defend (or look for correction, if it were to be provided) on Thieme's teachings. Yes. I am willing to hear people out if they have something objective and informative to say. I never believed Thieme was right always. He just so happens to be a very highly qualified teacher that often times scares the less competent who wish to compete in an arena where God says we are not to compete. No selfish ambition is allowed in God's plan.

So, it makes no sense to defend against an emotionally charged blind bias. One can not beneficially defend any teacher when its a matter that can not be understood by the one attacking out of motivation of sheer hateful bias.

One might as well try to reason with a Black Muslim, or KKK member about the wrongs of hating Jews. Logic and reasonableness will not satisfy and cause the truth to be seen.

Again, nicely said. Good insight.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Let's go Galiban bring it on

2 Corinthians 3:12 doesn't say glory or great boldness.

12 Having, then, such[b:abd5b1087a] hope[/b:abd5b1087a], we use much [b:abd5b1087a]freedom of speech[/b:abd5b1087a], 13 and [are] not as Moses, who was putting a vail upon his own face, for the sons of Israel not stedfastly to look to the end of that which is being made useless, 14 but their minds were hardened, for unto this day the same vail at the reading of the Old Covenant doth remain unwithdrawn -- which in Christ is being made useless -- 15 but till to-day, when Moses is read, a vail upon their heart doth lie, 16 and whenever they may turn unto the Lord, the vail is taken away. 17 And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty;


The great boldness you and Thieme are speaking of are from Thieme's imagination of "Super warriors" who worship thier egos. Christians should not worship thier own egos before God. You have no idol before me.


[bible1.crosswalk.com]

I don't have time to reply to the last post, but I will.

Truthtesty

Truthtesty,
I realize you are using the KJV. I have posted some other translations.

Quote

ASV
2Co 3:12 Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness of speech,
NIV
12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold
Netbible
3:12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness,

KJV (and all translations) inherently possesses errors, the modern translations I feel are much better. Here is some material concerning KJV and modern translations:
[www.contenderministries.org]

Here is the Exegesis. (In sequence)

Quote

χράομαι chraomai khrah'-om-ahee
Middle voice of a primary verb (perhaps rather from G5495, to handle); to furnish what is needed; (give an oracle, “graze” [touch slightly], light upon, etc.), that is, (by implication) to employ or (by extension) [b:a72e6611dd]to act towards one in a given manner:[/b:a72e6611dd] - entreat, use. Compare G5531, G5534.

πολύς, πολλός polus polos pol-oos'
Including the forms from the alternate “pollos”; (singular) much (in any respect) or (plural) many; neuter (singular) as adverb largely; neuter (plural) as adverb or noun often, mostly, largely: - abundant, + altogether, common, + far (passed, spent), (+ be of a) [b:a72e6611dd]great[/b:a72e6611dd] (age, deal, -ly, while), long, many, much, oft (-en [-times]), plenteous, sore, straitly. Compare G4118, G4119.

παῤῥησία parrhēsia par-rhay-see'-ah
From G3956 and a derivative of G4483; all out spokenness, that is, frankness, bluntness, publicity; by implication assurance: - [b:a72e6611dd]bold[/b:a72e6611dd] (X -ly, -ness, -ness of speech), confidence, X freely, X openly, X plainly (-ness).

I think “behaving with a confident boldness” is best, though that is my translation.

Up to this point I have avoided directly discussing anything with you due to your obviously dubious motives and lack of insight. Dr. Wall which you seemed to hold much faith in, also has these motives and now hopefully my previous post has enlightened all readers not just yourself with his motives. I have no desire to “bring it on”. I desire for you to see the accurate biblical viewpoint.

I know that is shooting for the stars but I do hope.
Perhaps you can choose 3 points from Dr. Wall and I shall address two and leave a third for you?
I can point you to places to learn the original languages, snag an electronic concordance and from that point on you are Golden. With the concordance and a little know how you can do just what I did. The Grammar will have to come later. Context will take some years as well, as you begin to learn the doctrines, scriptures and biblical principles.

Fact checking my posts excites me! Learning these subjects is a part of my walk and should be for all Christians. If I am wrong I genuinely wish to know it. Second, when you fact check my work you will see the accuracy of my work, and the fallibility of Dr. Wall’s. Inherently you will begin to recognize a good Pastor Teacher with divine insight.