Quote:
Zeebrook: Dr Wall stated emphatically that R.B. Thieme Jr "is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox.

Truthtesty: He did not "emphatically" state that. That is your emphasis.
Unquote

Let's examine that. Dr Wall says of Thieme in this thesis (http://www.texaswalls.org/immys/pdfs/thieme_by_joe_wall.pdf) that he:
Quote

still within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy (p11)

While still in high school Thieme accepted Christ as his savior. (p13)

he is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox Christianity, who is providing doctrinal teaching that many today are hungry for. (p36)

still within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy (p151)

Unquote

I would say that since Dr Wall considers Thieme, in his well reasoned analysis, within the limits of Christian orthodoxy, accepted Christ as saviour, is a Christian brother, within the circle of orthodox Christianity and within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy emphatically considers Thieme to be a believer.

Quote
zeebrook
Quote:
Zeebrook: Dr Wall stated emphatically that R.B. Thieme Jr "is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox.

Truthtesty: He did not "emphatically" state that. That is your emphasis.
Unquote

zeebrook: Let's examine that. Dr Wall says of Thieme in this thesis [www.texaswalls.org] that he:
Quote

still within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy (p11)

While still in high school Thieme accepted Christ as his savior. (p13)

he is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox Christianity, who is providing doctrinal teaching that many today are hungry for. (p36)

still within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy (p151)

Unquote

zeebrook: I would say that since Dr Wall considers Thieme, in his well reasoned analysis, within the limits of Christian orthodoxy, accepted Christ as saviour, is a Christian brother, within the circle of orthodox Christianity and within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy emphatically considers Thieme to be a believer.

Truthtesty: Again the "emphatic" is your emphasis, not Dr. Wall's. And clearly shows your premature conclusion. Dr. Wall is well reasoned to a point.

Sure lol let's examine the WHOLE TRUTH, thiemite.

First, you won't apologize and your just going to bypass all my questions? And (try lol) to focus only that Dr Wall said in his dissertation that "he is a Christian brother well
within the circle of orthodox Christianity"

Just that? Lol are you sure you just want to stick with that? On this forum? Oh well...

Quit trying to protect Thieme, go ahead and put the WHOLE quote zeebrook, not just what you fictiously WANT people to see to protect your cult leader.

The WHOLE QUOTE says:
Dr. Wall quote: "His
doctrine of the blood has some serious errors, but he is a Christian brother well
within the circle of orthodox Christianity, who is providing doctrinal teaching that
many today are hungry for.

Truthtesty: Here is where I disagree with Dr. Wall, because something is not right. Dr. Wall stated:

"The Standard for Orthodoxy

The primary dictionary definition of orthodox is "sound or correct in
opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine." One's opinion as to
what is orthodox, therefore, is determined by the standard for "sound or correct"
doctrine by which one measures doctrine. Two measuring rods will be employed
in this dissertation.

First...

Second, the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a concise statement of Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology, will be used as a broader basis for determining orthodoxy."

Truthtesty: But if you read the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary and Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer you will see the literal blood theology of Chafer. Dr. Chafer believed in the literal Shed Blood of Christ. And? That Chafer was aware before he died and commented on the new perversions of the"Blood of Christ" Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology Blood [Vol. 7, Page 52-55] ( 3 sections - Sacrificial blood, Cleansing blood, and Covenant blood) Chafer (summarizing) says in 1 part that arrogant men have no authority elevate themselves to judge the very blood priniciple which God already judged, executed, and revealed to men to deal with sin.

(Also Thieme lied about his "blood evidence" in Bauer, Ardnt, and Gingrich. Which I have shown before)

From DTS doctrinal statement: We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).

Dr. Chafer believed in the literal blood of Christ being efficacious. So? 1 part of Dr. Wall's own standard of orthodoxy is inconsistent here. Perhaps he didn't finish writing it or perhaps as I said before Dr. Wall used very soft gloves to critique Thieme (on the Blood of Christ.) Was this because a member of Dr. Wall's family served with Thieme in the military? Was this because Dr. Wall was under pressure from DTS faculty to "take it easy on DTS alumni Thieme"? Would DTS be embarassed of a graduated heretic?

Also to me it is inconsistent to include Thieme in what must be a very broad HUGE circle of orthodoxy, because you have to include in orthodoxy: "Without these clarifications the teaching of confession and forgiveness can even result in a rationalization of the continuing existence of sin and the
repression of guilt, and this can produce emotional problems and even
schizophrenia. The author has personally counseled people with such problems
stemming from their abuse of Thieme's teaching on confession and fellowship."


"Basic view. First, he has an unbalanced view of spiritual authority.
Pastoral or elder leadership authority extends to the overseeing of the operation of
church ministries, the maintenance of sound teaching in the local church and the
protection of the believers' souls from false doctrine (I Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28, 29;
Heb. 13:17). It clearly involves leadership by example, not by lording over or "bullying" the flock (I Pet. 5:3; Heb. 13:7). Thieme has added to these clear
biblical directions. He claims that he must be the final source of doctrine for all
in his flock, and that the individual believer cannot study Scripture for himself.
Not only does the Scripture not teach such a view of doctrinal learning, but it
teaches the opposite. Spiritual growth, Paul says in Ephesians 4, involves two
major ingredients that are contrary to the Thiemite doctrine: first, the gift of pastor-teacher is an equipping gift (verse 12, katartismon) designed to prepare all
believers (the saints) for doing the job of ministering and edifying; second,
maturing takes place as all the members of the body minister the truth of God to
one another in love (verses 15, 16), not just one select, gifted person.
Second, he confuses faith in biblical truth with a faith in a particular
teacher (i.e. one's right pastor). At no time does Scripture exhort the believer to
single out one particular teacher as his final doctrinal authority. On the contrary,
there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary
church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had
both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the
ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3
John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock,
forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ.
Thieme's right pastor doctrine could very well be called the "Diotrophes
doctrine."
"The argument that the life of the teacher is irrelevant is one also used by some cult leaders to excuse their life styles."..." For example, the leaders of the Children of God teach that their people are to ignore their blatant
immorality and submit to their authoritative teaching because they are God's appointed
authoritative teachers."


Truthtesty: That's orthodox? I do not see how the previous (bolded) statements could be considered with in a circle of orthodoxy. Dr. Wall clearly points to Thieme's cult abusive authority like the cult the Children of G-d and false cult authority of Diotrophes(and more...). That is clearly unorthodox.

Earlier I stated "I am not saying Dr. Wall got anything wrong except for the 1 Peter 5:3(4:3) typo." Pardon me at that time I didn't mention the inconsistent evidence of Thieme's unorthodoxy compared to the DTS doctrinal statement.

Also, I clearly agree with Thieme's critics Rev. Walters and Dr. Waite. (which I don't think Dr. Wall mentioned) Waite and Walters spoke of the Old testament "Types" and "AntiTypes" and how Thieme was violating the the types because you can't have a New Testament type as an antitype for a type also in the New Testament (see book authored by Waite and Walters).

Dr. Wall's summary of orthodoxy appears to be inconsistent with Dr. Wall's very accurate evidence. I suppose Dr. Wall (who I do have great regard for) could best clear this up.

So zeebrook, that is something new you can show thiemites how Thieme was incorrect, without using a sledgehammer lol!

Quote
zeebrook
[...]

I never met Sodini. Also I had never heard of Tetelstai church before I joined this forum. So on either account I know nothing about them.

Truthtesty: Your dodging. But? you read Sisters posts. That was your lying false accusation about me. "Less than honest..." Remember that? Which you had no clue and opened your mouth anyhow? Which you have not apologized for. True to thiemite form: never apologize and only mention positive things about Thieme.

Sister did post about deacon Rickard and it is clear that Tetelestai and Knapp and Rickard and 13 year attendee Sodini were of the Thieme variety of "once saved always saved" and if that is your criteria for Thieme then the same is for Sodini.

So you are just going to deceitfully avoid the obvious? Lol cmon! You know Sodini was of the once saved always saved variety "Christian brother" type. Rickard said he was. You are just being difficult and evasive to try to protect Thieme. You never met Sodini? Since you are trying to mislead the obvious Sodini/Thieme/ChristianIntegrity association I'll sum it like this then. YOU never crawled inside either Thieme's or Sodini's head and saw what they thought. SO YOU DON'T KNOW. Dodge that.

By the way we are not intimidated. We often get thiemites who try to intimidate here with so-called "language skills"(like Thieme intimidated) and they all turned out so far to be a joke.

zeebrook: I did meet R.B. Thieme Jr, spoken to him on a few occasions, and have attended Berachah Church during Thieme's ministry. In my dealings with Thieme he was courteous, patient, answered my questions, directed me to further research and I would concur with Dr Wall he was a Christian brother.

Truthtesty: Like I said I am not convinced that Thieme was a "Christian brother". I could have met Thieme if I had wanted to, so I never did. To me Thieme was a fake sick shallow intimidating weak perverted bully who falsified the Word of G-d for a neocon political agenda and cowardly hid behind the Houston police. We received a report that a greek scholar questioned Thieme after class on Thieme's error in greek. And Thieme just snickered and had his goons escort the greek student from BeREICHah.

[Truthtesty...] states:

"Did not Thieme teach that you could have faith in Jesus once and then turn around quit believing and worship satan the rest of your life murder and still go to heaven? Yes he did."

zeebrook: To that person please provide the evidence for your quotation.

Truthtesty: Are you really going to try to deny that under once saved always saved that Thieme said you could quit believing and still be saved? Are you really going to try be so fake and pretentious solely to protect Thieme to pretend that Thieme did not say you could quit believing and still be saved? Every thiemite knows that and they know Thieme said it. Dodge that.


Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2009 11:49AM by Truthtesty.

Quote
zeebrook
Quote:
Zeebrook: Dr Wall stated emphatically that R.B. Thieme Jr "is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox.

Truthtesty: He did not "emphatically" state that. That is your emphasis.
Unquote

Let's examine that. Dr Wall says of Thieme in this thesis (http://www.texaswalls.org/immys/pdfs/thieme_by_joe_wall.pdf) that he:
Quote

still within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy (p11)

While still in high school Thieme accepted Christ as his savior. (p13)

he is a Christian brother well within the circle of orthodox Christianity, who is providing doctrinal teaching that many today are hungry for. (p36)

still within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy (p151)

Unquote

I would say that since Dr Wall considers Thieme, in his well reasoned analysis, within the limits of Christian orthodoxy, accepted Christ as saviour, is a Christian brother, within the circle of orthodox Christianity and within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy emphatically considers Thieme to be a believer.

I do think the date of writing of Wall's dissertation is significant. Thieme developed his peculiar doctrines even further after Wall Wrote. He went to even more extreme questionable teachings after Wall's critique. This tells me that he pretty much ignored the efforts of Wall to point out serious problems with Thieme's teaching and ministry. He did not profit from this rebuke. A Christian brother CAN be stubborn in his error and still retain his salvation if he has it to begin with. We have no way of knowing the sincerity of Thieme's high school conversion. We don't know any details. Therefore we can only judge by his words and actions to see if these are consistent with what the Bible says should be the life of the believer. I think it is possible that Thieme's possible personality problems interfered with his perception of reality.

But in the end God alone knows for sure if Thieme was really saved to begin with. If he was, then according to the Bible he is in heaven today, minus mint juleps and plantations full of loser believer slaves.

As for Sodini, I agree that IF (and it is a BIG IF) he was really saved at some point in his life, he is in heaven. But the entire tenor of his life, as little as we can know it from such a scanty record, shouts that his conversion was not genuine. It is entirely possible that he believed the wrong gospel. Many people do, you know. A false gospel does not save. Trusting the wrong Jesus does not save, either. The Biblical teaching of the eternal security of the believer does not cease to be true because of one inficidual's distortion of it. The distorted teaching does have consequences and Sodini's justification of his actions and his seeming enjoyment of sin is totally inconsistent with a saved person. A carnal Christian can fall far below where he has been, and lose much time and maturity. Personally I don't think Sodini was saved. But Thieme did teach the casual attitude to sin because of the rebound doctrine, giving his followers a powerful license to sin. True biblical teaching on this subject renders one incredibly thankful for the full and free forgiveness we have because of Christ. It does not motivate us to sin and enjoy it over and over again. It seems to me that Sodini relished his evil thoughts and acts and I don't see that in a sane believer. There is this definite link between Thieme's teaching and what Sodini absorbed from the Thieme clone church.

Sistersoap

zeebrook,

Could you please contact me through this link:-
[www.4shared.com]
(contact is at top right of screen).

To the Forum:

One of the reasons that I quote Dr. Chafer is specifically because of Dr. Wall's dissertation. In which dissertation Dr. Wall uses Dr. Chafer's Theology as one of the measuring rods of orthodoxy.


Thieme Quote: 1 John 1:7 And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL.

Thieme Quote: "when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself.”

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 3, Page 42 - says that it was not the blood Jesus sweat in the garden that was efficacious, nor the blood of circumsicion, but the blood shed on the cross that was efficacious, while Jesus was obediant to the will of God. (basically blood connected with Jesus' obediant death)

However, since Thieme claimed he followed Dr. Chafer so closely, then why didn't Thieme point out Dr. Chafer's own example of the figurative usage of the blood of Christ? Instead? Thieme attacked "bleeding heart" liberal CHRISTIANS, for Thieme's own incompetent neocon political agenda.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood

Truthtesty: As stated before one of Dr. Wall's measuring rods of orthodoxy was Dr. Chafer's theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer refered to cults no less than 14 times in his 8 volumes of Systematic Theology(1952).

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110
Chafer

Quote

As has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely, What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ?

Chafer believed that the literal Blood of Christ as efficacious. Chafer also recognized the Blood of Christ; was also a metaphor (therefore with endless meaning). Thieme does not believe the literal Blood of Christ is efficacious. According to the measeuring rod of Chafer's litmus test, Chafer would consider Thieme a cult, because without faith in pure shed blood of Jesus, there is no salvation. Disagreement on the Blood of Christ is not just as minor theological difference, Chafer would consider Thieme's teaching on the Blood of Christ as satanic and yes an unorthodox cult.

Truthtesty

To the Forum:

One of the reasons that I quote Dr. Chafer is specifically because of Dr. Wall's dissertation. In which dissertation Dr. Wall uses Dr. Chafer's Theology as one of the measuring rods of orthodoxy.


Thieme Quote: 1 John 1:7 And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL.

Thieme Quote: "when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself.”

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 3, Page 42 - says that it was not the blood Jesus sweat in the garden that was efficacious, nor the blood of circumsicion, but the blood shed on the cross that was efficacious, while Jesus was obediant to the will of God. (basically blood connected with Jesus' obediant death)

Truthtesty: However, since Thieme claimed he followed Dr. Chafer so closely, then why didn't Thieme point out Dr. Chafer's own example of the figurative usage of the blood of Christ? Instead? Thieme attacked "bleeding heart" liberal CHRISTIANS, for Thieme's own incompetent neocon political agenda.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood

Truthtesty: As stated before one of Dr. Wall's measuring rods of orthodoxy was Dr. Chafer's theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer refered to cults no less than 14 times in his 8 volumes of Systematic Theology(1952).

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110
ChaferAs has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely, What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ?

Chafer believed that the literal Blood of Christ as efficacious. Chafer also recognized the Blood of Christ; was also a metaphor (therefore with endless meaning). Thieme does not believe the literal Blood of Christ is efficacious. According to the measeuring rod of Chafer's own orthodox acid test, Chafer would consider Thieme a cult, because without faith in pure shed blood of Jesus, there is no salvation. Disagreement on the Blood of Christ is not just as minor theological difference, Chafer would consider Thieme's teaching on the Blood of Christ as satanic and yes an unorthodox cult.

Truthtesty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2009 09:02AM by Truthtesty.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood.

I don't have all Thieme's booklets, but Thieme quotes Chafer in no less than 12 of Thieme's booklets. But Thieme doesn't quote Chafer at all in Thieme's Blood of Christ booklets. Thieme does not tell you the whole truth.

As I said Thieme's hermenutics are pathetic. One such example is Thieme says you should insert in place of "the Blood", “the SPIRITUAL DEATH” of Christ. This is a violation of the basic hermeneutical principles of Scripture interpretation by setting up a typology in the New Testament based on the anti-type also in the New Testament. Type and anti-type are Old Testament "Type" to New Testament "Anti-Type". This is BASIC hermenuetics and NOT ADVANCED hermenuetics AND Thieme fumbles the ball. Thieme forces this on the average people who really don't know much about hermenuetics. Most average people think "well he went to school so it must be true" but it is not true. Again this "private interpretation" of Thieme's is to support his false fascist politically extreme ideology.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Blood Vol. VII, Page 52
1. Sacrificial. The all-inclusive declaration on this point which sums up the Old Testament order and the New avers that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). It is shed blood which has always been required for deliverance, and thus it was in the type and the antitype, Christ in His crucifixion. The mystery of all that enters into the required blood sacrifice for sin cannot be traced through to its end. It traverses more of unknown realms than it does this realm. The truth of God’s requiring a blood sacrifice as the righteous ground for the remission of sin was established beyond all dispute in Old Testament times. Though the many offerings sustained no efficacy in themselves to take away sin, they did speak of the immutable necessity of a ransom or redemption by blood as a cure for sin. To challenge this fact is not only to overlook the teaching set forth in the types and the New Testament’s direct explanation of Christ’s death, but it is to assume that the human valuation of sin may be equivalent to the divine evaluation. What authority, indeed, has a mortal—a mere creature—to arrogate to himself the right to sit in judgment upon God and declare unnecessary the principle which God has established and to which He at infinite cost unto Himself has conformed in all ages? The glorious message is, indeed, that efficacious blood has been shed and that men are invited to receive the value of it, that Christ’s blood was shed as a sacrifice which God Himself provided to meet His demands against sin, and that this way of dealing with sin, from Abel’s lamb to the day of Christ’s death, is the only interpretation which fully and rightly construes all that the Bible presents on this its central theme of salvation.

Truthtesty: Thieme not only insults the intelligence of members of the Thieme cult, and nearly every human teacher in history, but Thieme even insults the intelligence of God. Thieme arrogates "to himself the right to sit in judgment upon God and declare unnecessary the principle which God has established and to which He at infinite cost unto Himself has conformed in all ages."

Thieme tried to "be like the most high."


Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Thieme continued his attack on the literal Shed Blood of Christ. But? Thieme's attack false and he sited "evidence" which did not exist:

Thieme quote BOC 1979:

As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich


Truthtesty:

Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima

1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc... hemorrhage (cf. Lev 15:25, 20:18)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc... It's use as food is forbidden (cf. Lev 3:17, 7:26f, 17:10)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

2. fig--- a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc... shed blood = kill (Aeschyl.; Gen 9:6, 37:22, Lev 17:4,13, 1Km 25:31 al.;... Luke 11: 50, Acts 22:20, Rom. 3:15 (Ps 13:3, Is 59:7) Rv 16:6, Luke 11:51, Mt 23:20, Rv 16:6, 18:24, 17:6, 19:2, (1Km 9:7), 6:10, Pol 2:1, Mt 27: 4,24, Heb 12:4, (cf Heliod 7,8,2 ...) ...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

Truthtesty:

Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

So to determine the figurative usage of "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice compare 1Cl 55:1 with Rom. 3:25.

1 Clement 55:1 says

1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.

[www.earlychristianwritings.com]

Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.

Arndt and Gingrich goes on:

Arndt and Gingrich:
b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice (not just blood alone). Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only" and in doing so is unjustly attacking the Blood of Christ. Ardnt and Gingrich do not understand or agree with Thieme's false "figurative" teaching.

You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used with different people.

Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only" and Thieme's false theory that "haima" is ABSOLUTELY figurative and does not refer to literal Shed Blood of Jesus, is not substantiated by the evidence of Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Dr. Wall dissertation quote: "In a later section the relationship of the physical death and spiritual
death of Christ to the atonement will be considered. At that point it will be shown
that Thieme's view of the term blood of Christ is not only doubtful linguistically
but also impossible theologically."

Dr. Wall quote: See also Leon Morris's study of the blood in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), pp. 108-124

Truthtesty: And pp. 108-124 is titled: "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD" by Leon Morris.

I have already proven that Thieme misrepresented the figurative to literal meaning of "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice" in Bauer, Ardnt and Giingrich many times on this forum. Thieme completely misrepresents the figurative to literal meaning of Bauer, Ardnt and Giingrich p. 22, 23.

In addition:

Remember this is "absolute truth" Bible doctrine from Thieme. Nothing at the Thieme temple could be more "absoluty truthy" or more "bible doctriney" than Thieme speaking about "spiritual death" and the Blood of Christ".


Thieme 1979 "Blood of Christ" booklet: THE PLAN OF SALVATION
In studying the New Testament we frequently encounter the phrase "the blood of Christ." In every instance, this term is a synonym for the saving work of Christ on the Cross.

Truthtesty: Note Thieme says in every instance.

Ok? same booklet, again remember this is "absolute truth" to thiemites.

Thieme 1979 "Blood of Christ" booklet: As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich, the latest Greek lexicographers. Under the word haima, "blood," they devote an entire paragraph to the figurative uses of the word. They describe it as "the blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as the means of expiation."17

^{17William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, trans, and adapt.,A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by Walter Bauer (Cambridge: The University Press and Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 22.}

Truthtesty: This figurative (to literal) explanation begins on p. 22 (2. fig.-A) but the "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as the means of expiation.", is actually on p. 23 (2. fig.-B). This not my point. This is my point. However, on p. 23 (3.) This is the continued page that is still under the same heading of "haima". P. 23 lists LMorris JTS n.s. 3, '52, 216-227. And what is LMorris JTS n.s. 3, '52, 216-227 on p. 23?

[jts.oxfordjournals.org] THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM ‘BLOOD’

And what does Morris say about the Blood of Christ? Many things, but one of them specifically is

From "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD" by Leon Morris

...The remaining passages seem to point to sacrificial blood. Six times there is reference to covenant blood, which calls for no comment to show the sacrificial reference; in Rom. 3:25 God is said to have set forth Christ as hilasterion ... en to autou haimati , where the word hilasterion points us to the sacrifices. In Heb. 9 the whole context with its mention of the blood of sacrificial victims shows that verses 12 and 14 carry a reference to the sacrificial system when they speak of the blood of Christ, and the same is true of 10:19. The unusual phrase 'blood of sprinkling' (Heb. 12:24) points to a sacrificial action, and the context shows that in Heb. 13:12 the sin offering is in mind. The sprinkling of the blood in 1 Pet. 1:2 again indicates a sacrificial action, while the blood 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood, and the same is probably true of 'the blood of the Lamb' in Rev. 7:14, 12:11. Finally, the thought of cleansing associated with the blood in 1 John 17 seems to be an allusion to sacrifice.

And what does the KJV say 1 Pet. 1:19 says?

1 Pet. 1:19 (KJV) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Leon Morris clearly states above: The sprinkling of the blood in 1 Pet. 1:2 again indicates a sacrificial action, while the blood 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood,

The precious Blood of Christ is clearly sacrificial blood in 1 Pet 1:19, stated by Leon Morris, Morris was referenced by Ardnt and Gingrich (actually Bauer Ardnt Gingrich), and Ardnt and Gingrich was referenced by Thieme.

From Thieme's own reference p 22, 23 Ardnt and Gingrich, the Blood of Christ is proven to be literal sacrificial Blood.

If thiemites hadn't been so busy submitting thier study for Thieme's study, and if thiemites had done thier own study by comparing and contrasting thier study to other studies instead, they would have found these errors. But they were to busy submitting thier study to thier "right pastor"'s study.

Now this was "absolute truth" to thiemites. The reality is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, Thieme believed that he could say absolutely anything and that thiemites would be absolutely foolish enough to believe absolutely anything Thieme said absolutely.

The "Sacred Science"
The cult's ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. The ideology is too "sacred" to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership. The cult's ideology makes an exaggerated claim for possessing airtight logic, making it appear as absolute truth with no contradictions. Such an attractive system offers security.

[www.freeminds.org]

You have no need for any man to teach you 1 John 2:27.

Truthtesty

[...]

And what does Morris say about the Blood of Christ? Many things, but one of them specifically is

Unquote

Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross third edition of 1965 on page 126 says by way of conclusion:
Quote
Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death. It is freely admitted that there are some passages in which it is possible to interpret the blood as signifying life, but even these yield a better sense (and one which is consistent with the wider biblical usage) if understood to mean `life given up in death'. In particular, there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm/; `"Blood of Christ" like "cross", only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning.
Unquote
Morris' position is that "the blood of Christ" is an expression denoting the death of Christ. He is not saying this is the literal blood of Christ. The use of 1 Peter 1:19 he uses (page 124) to clearly show that the image of the sacrificial blood in the Old Testament in demonstrating death is picked up in the death of Christ.

In Morris' 1983 subsequent book The Atonement, basically a layman's approach to The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross he says onpage 63 quote:
The usage of `blood' in the New Testament, then, does not lend support to the view that it points to life. We are not to think that when the New Testament writers used the word they referred to life set free from the bondage of the body and available for new and greater purposes. They meant that Christ had died. And if they used the expression in a way that recalls the sacrifices and the blood shed in them, then they meant that the death of Jesus is to be seen as a sacrifice which accomplishes in reality what the old sacrifices pointed to but could not do.
Unquote
Morris is saying that the old testament sacrifices shed literal animal blood as a demonstration of death. He goes on to say that when the term blood is used in reference to Jesus it points to His death as a sacrifice not that His literal blood was bleeding. Now as Morris, Stibbs, Behm and many others note the term "to shed blood" means to die, one does not have to literally bleed.

Morris was not holding to the literally shedding of literal blood upon the cross of Christ as being our salvation. He is pointing out that Jesus' death upon the Christ is our salvation. He goes on to clear this up on page 64 when he says, quote:
what Hebrews is saying is that the will of God in question meant `the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ'.
unquote.

This he said in response to Hebrews 10:10 "by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all".

It is misleading to think that Morris is holding to your view of Christ's literal blood being literally shed as our salvation. Whilst he, and I also, believe that Christ did die on the cross, that he shed his blood (= His death), and that He also bled some, it was his death that saves (and that both spiritual and physical death).

Contrary to what you state when you say "The precious Blood of Christ is clearly sacrificial blood in 1 Pet 1:19". No sacrificial blood was just that Old Testament sacrificial literal blood. As Morris affirms Behm's statement "Blood of Christ" like "cross", only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning..

You need to accuratley represent view points.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, no I do not hold to Thieme's view on the blood of Christ. I do believe Christ had to die physically upon the cross (as well as spiritually) for our salvation. His death upon the cross is what the the term "the blood of Christ" denotes. Refer to studies by Morris, Stibbs, Behm and many, many others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2009 09:56PM by rrmoderator.