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