Thanks orangeperuviscacha.

Biblical studies can be helpful to examine the group's premise and if it makes any sense contextually or historically.

But you are right, the bottom line is behavior and whether anyone has been hurt.

rrmoderator,

The pastor Dean mentioned by Galiban is actually very intimately associated with the whole Thiemite movement. He was a student of Thieme's and I believe a possible candidate to take over Thieme's ministry when Thieme finally retired with dementia. So, it is not as if Dean is some credentialled Theologian who just happens to agree with Thieme. He is, a chip off the old block so to speak, much like the Thiemite clones that have been mentioned in a previous post. I believe Dean may have been ordained by Thieme too but I could be mistaken about that. It is interesting that the close association with Thieme was not mentioned by Galiban though.

Here is Dean's bio from his website and it does mention the association with Thieme:
[deanbible.org]

This thread has been tremendously interesting and sad. Thiemites, read your Bibles, learn Greek if you must. It isn't something beyond your reach. Find a local Bible believing church and trust Christ not Thieme.

Proverbs 14:12

OOPS, Re-read Galiban's post and I missed the part on my first read where he mentions the Dean/Thieme association. Sorry about that. The intimate association is there (Dean/Thieme). From what I know, unlike most of the Thieme clones, Dean does actually encourage people to read their Bibles which is a step in the right direction! However, putting Dean forward as some credentialled theologian that agrees with Thieme is a bit of a stetch because of the close association.

For some good critiques of their system of doctrine in general check these articles out:
[www.monergism.com]

Galiban,


THERE IS ONLY ONE MASTER - GOD - THERE IS NO CO-MASTER. THERE IS ONLY 1 ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY - GOD - THERE IS NO CO-AUTHORITY, THERE IS ONLY ONE OWNER, NO CO-OWNER - GOD - THERE IS ONLY ONE LORD, THERE IS NO CO-LORD, AND THERE IS ONLY ONE SUBMISSION, NO CO-SUBMISSION. [u:ad9df608ff][b:ad9df608ff]ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EQUAL [/b:ad9df608ff][/u:ad9df608ff]IN THIER SUBMISSION TO JESUS.


Matthew 23 8 `And ye -- ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director -- the Christ, and all ye are brethren; 9 and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens, 10 nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ. 11 And the greater of you shall be your ministrant, 12 and whoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled, and whoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

JESUS IS MAKING A VERY VERY VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN JESUS' ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY AND THE LACK OF ANY OTHER AUTHORITY AMONG THE BRETHREN. THE IS NO AUTHORITATIVE TITLE OR OFFICE OF AUTHORITY THAT THE BRETHREN MAY HOLD. EQUALITY OF ALL THE BRETHREN IN SUBMISSION TO THE FLESH OF GOD.


THERE IS ONLY ONE IN CONTROL OF A CONGREGATION - GOD.

THE CONGREGATION IS GOD'S PROPERTY, NOT THIEME'S PROPERTY. THIEME IS AT BEST IS TO SERVE AS [b:ad9df608ff][u:ad9df608ff]O N E [/u:ad9df608ff][/b:ad9df608ff] SMALL EXAMPLE TO GOD'S PROPERTY.


THIEME DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE PLURAILTY OF ELDERS

Per Dr. Wall: Thieme's interpretation fails to recognize any leadership plurality, and thus opens the way for a pastoral abuse of power.


TRUTHTESTY

Hi, ephesians,

I’ll begin with the following statement:

[i:9122a513f2]Which brings me to the argument of the importance of 1 John 1:9 to the basic spiritual life. Indeed, Thieme’s exegesis goes a long way toward [b:9122a513f2]development of doctrines that are difficult to derive from simple English readings[/b:9122a513f2]... [/i:9122a513f2]

So you admit that Thieme’s doctrines are dependent on his Greek Game. And a common Christian reading his English Bible cannot find all the doctrines of the Bible. He needs Thieme to re-word what the Bible says, with his own personal “corrected translations.”

[i:9122a513f2]...but 1 John 1:9 must be as simple as a salvation verse to understand, given its dire importance. It was even your own thought that people, away from the aid of lexicons or pastors, must be able to understand the Bible in their own language. Be honest, if [b:9122a513f2]immediately after you were saved[/b:9122a513f2], I had given you 1 John 1:9, and you had to tell me what it meant to you in plain English, [b:9122a513f2]what would you have said[/b:9122a513f2].[/i:9122a513f2]

Well, ephesians, I most likely would have seen “forgiveness of sins” and “cleansing from all unrighteousness” and immediately thought of salvation. Maybe I would’ve understood exactly what John meant by confessing sins, and maybe I wouldn’t have, but in any case a simple comparison of scriptures would clarify it for me. I can’t imagine that I would have jumped to a conclusion that contradicts all the other scriptures I would’ve read that irrefutably declare the forgiveness of all sins and cleansing from all unrighteousness [i:9122a513f2]at salvation[/i:9122a513f2]. I can say for sure that I would not have gone jumping around to all kinds of random verses like Eph 5:18 and attach them to 1 John 1:9. You are of course asking me a hypothetical question, and it is impossible for me (or you) to say for certain how well I would’ve understood this verse. At any rate, I never read the Bible for myself until after I left Thieme’s teaching (because, after all, only Greek scholars can understand the Bible), so we’ll never know for sure, will we?

Let me ask you this: Suppose a 16th-century French Huguenot is reading his Olivetan Bible. He starts at Matthew and reads all the way through 2 Peter. He hasn’t read your favorite verse, 1 John 1:9, yet. Can you show me one scripture that he would’ve read that could be construed in any way, [i:9122a513f2]on its own[/i:9122a513f2], to teach “rebound”? You promised us a study on “rebound” in the New Testament supported by other scriptures than 1 John 1:9, and now you’re suddenly bailing out of the debate. What happened?

[i:9122a513f2]What do [b:9122a513f2]95% of the Christians of the world [/b:9122a513f2]believe it means?[/i:9122a513f2]

“95% of the Christians of the world”? Really? How do you know this? Did you take a worldwide survey of Christians? Did you do an in-depth study of church history? That’s an awfully bold claim to make without presenting any evidence for it. Sure, there are many teachers who believe that 1 John 1:9 is an ongoing part of the Christian life, but there are plenty more who don’t. The first ones who come to mind are Cornelius Stam, Miles Stanford, and Bob George. We could get into a contest here, listing the theologians who agree with our respective viewpoints, but what would that prove? You claim the majority interpret 1 John 1:9 as an ongoing practice, and that may even be true, but what would that prove? Also, there may be many churches that interpret 1 John 1:9 as part of the spiritual life, but the ones who teach it as something that must be done minute-by-minute every time we sin (and who attach such extreme consequences to it), as Thieme does, are a tiny minority. Allow me to quote your friend from [www.geocities.com]:

[i:9122a513f2]There are scads of websites talking about 1 John. But hey: [b:9122a513f2]just try to find even five pastors on the internet, who know that connection to Filling: who recognize that 1Jn1:9 is a courtroom claim which gets you the unfelt ‘Brains’ of the Holy Spirit.[/b:9122a513f2][/i:9122a513f2] [emphasis his]

You wrote:

[i:9122a513f2]This is what I mean by black and white subjectivity. Exactly what is a “change of heart”? [b:9122a513f2]I can have an emotional “change of heart” right now about something, and then turn right around and fall right back into old patterns tomorrow.[/b:9122a513f2] How many people do you think have these “changes of heart” but its just the same old sixes and sevens the minute their mind wanders elsewhere? Human will and power is just too weak to propagate any kind of long-term change of life based on a one-time decision to get emotional about doing better.[/i:9122a513f2]

The “emotional” change of heart that you’re making an issue out of here is really not a change of heart at all. An abusive husband can have a temporary emotional change, feel some remorse for what he’s done, and even show affection to his wife. But if he goes back to beating her a few days later, he never had any change of heart (i.e., repentance) in the first place. It just happened to feel good to be nice for a few days. (I’ve known men like this—if they can even be called men—and it’s sickening to watch.) If he “turns right around and falls right back into old patterns tomorrow,” then obviously his heart never changed to begin with. This kind of man never had any conviction upon his heart of the sinfulness of his actions, and therefore no change of heart and no repentance, even if his emotional state temporarily changed. (It would be absurd, by the way, to say that his discipline would be removed if he just “named” the sin to God, but refused to repent and continued in his wicked behavior.) A true change of heart is the result of a conviction upon the person’s heart that what they’re doing is sinful and must be repented from. Sure, there are those who have an emotion with no inner change of heart, but the Lord knows the heart, and He will continue or withdraw His discipline accordingly.

On the other hand, I’ve also known men who were neck-deep in drinking and violence, but came under conviction from the Lord (whether through divine discipline and reaping what they sowed, or the Word of God, or both), and had a true change of heart, repented, and never returned to their carnal, destructive lifestyle. This is what a change of heart truly is. This is true repentance. And it’s also a very simple principle that is so easy to understand...until you get involved in a convoluted technical system like Thieme’s.

To answer your question, a “change of heart” is simply repentance. Repentance, as you should already know, is simply defined as a [i:9122a513f2]change of heart[/i:9122a513f2]. And repentance is commanded in the Bible repeatedly. Yet you essentially relegate it to a non-issue because it’s too “vague” or “subjective” or “emotional.” (Apparently the inspired Word of God is too vague and subjective to be followed and obeyed.) We see repentance all over the Bible. And over and over again, we see that the removal of discipline is the result of [i:9122a513f2]repentance [/i:9122a513f2](a change of heart), not “rebound.” The following scriptures are just the tip of the iceberg:

[b:9122a513f2][u:9122a513f2]Revelation 2[/u:9122a513f2] [/b:9122a513f2]

[b:9122a513f2]4[/b:9122a513f2] Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
[b:9122a513f2]5[/b:9122a513f2] Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and [b:9122a513f2]repent[/b:9122a513f2], and [b:9122a513f2]do the first works[/b:9122a513f2]; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou [b:9122a513f2]repent[/b:9122a513f2].

The Lord does not tell the church of Ephesus that they need a “quick naming of sins” to avoid His discipline. They must [i:9122a513f2]repent [/i:9122a513f2]and return to the works they had at first.

[b:9122a513f2]14 [/b:9122a513f2]But I have [b:9122a513f2]a few things against thee[/b:9122a513f2], because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
[b:9122a513f2]15 [/b:9122a513f2]So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
[b:9122a513f2]16 [/b:9122a513f2][b:9122a513f2]Repent[/b:9122a513f2]; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

The people of the church of Pergamos were falling into the doctrine of Balaam, fornication, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. Again, the Lord sternly warns them to [i:9122a513f2]repent[/i:9122a513f2], to cease from the things He has against them, before He chastises them.

[b:9122a513f2]20 [/b:9122a513f2]Notwithstanding I have [b:9122a513f2]a few things against thee[/b:9122a513f2], because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
[b:9122a513f2]21 [/b:9122a513f2]And I gave her space to [b:9122a513f2]repent [/b:9122a513f2]of her fornication; and she [b:9122a513f2]repented [/b:9122a513f2]not.
[b:9122a513f2]22 [/b:9122a513f2]Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they [b:9122a513f2]repent [/b:9122a513f2]of their deeds.

The false prophetess Jezebel was leading the people of the church of Thyatira into fornication and idolatry. The Lord gave her time to [i:9122a513f2]repent[/i:9122a513f2], not to “rebound.” How silly it would be to think that she could have avoided His discipline if she just quickly “named and cited” her sin!

[b:9122a513f2][u:9122a513f2]Revelation 3[/u:9122a513f2][/b:9122a513f2]

[b:9122a513f2]1b [/b:9122a513f2]I know [b:9122a513f2]thy works[/b:9122a513f2], that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
[b:9122a513f2]2 [/b:9122a513f2]Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain that are ready to die: for [b:9122a513f2]I have not found thy works perfect before God[/b:9122a513f2].
[b:9122a513f2]3 [/b:9122a513f2]Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and [b:9122a513f2]repent[/b:9122a513f2]. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

The people of the church of Sardis are commanded to [i:9122a513f2]repent [/i:9122a513f2]and return to the works they once had. No “quick naming of sins” and no “restoration to fellowship” mentioned here.

[b:9122a513f2]15 [/b:9122a513f2]I know [b:9122a513f2]thy works[/b:9122a513f2], that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
[b:9122a513f2]16 [/b:9122a513f2]So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. ...
[b:9122a513f2]19 [/b:9122a513f2]As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be [b:9122a513f2]zealous [/b:9122a513f2]therefore, and [b:9122a513f2]repent[/b:9122a513f2].

The notorious lukewarm church of Laodicea is commanded to be “[i:9122a513f2]zealous[/i:9122a513f2]” and “[i:9122a513f2]repent[/i:9122a513f2].” They are told to return to the zeal and the works they once had for the Lord. A “quick naming of sins” with no change of heart will not prevent the Lord from spewing them out of His mouth.

[b:9122a513f2][u:9122a513f2]1 Corinthians 3[/b:9122a513f2] (the true description of spirituality and carnality)[/u:9122a513f2]
[b:9122a513f2]1 [/b:9122a513f2]And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
[b:9122a513f2]2 [/b:9122a513f2]I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
[b:9122a513f2]3 [/b:9122a513f2]For [b:9122a513f2][u:9122a513f2]ye are yet carnal[/u:9122a513f2]: for whereas [u:9122a513f2]there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions[/u:9122a513f2], are ye not carnal[/b:9122a513f2], and walk as men?
[b:9122a513f2]4 [/b:9122a513f2]For while [u:9122a513f2]one saith, I am of Paul[/u:9122a513f2]; and [u:9122a513f2]another, I am of Apollos[/u:9122a513f2]; [u:9122a513f2]are ye not carnal[/u:9122a513f2]?

The reason the Corinthians are carnal is that there’s envying, strife, and divisions (as well as many other sinful behaviors) among them; it’s not because they didn’t “rebound.” As long as they persist in these behaviors, they are “yet carnal.” They would remain carnal until they had a [i:9122a513f2]change of heart[/i:9122a513f2] and [i:9122a513f2]repented[/i:9122a513f2], and ceased their envy and strife. What a wonderfully simplistic principle this is, and so easy to see for any common Christian reading his English Bible. There is nothing vague or subjective about this, epehesians.

[u:9122a513f2][b:9122a513f2]Ephesians 4[/b:9122a513f2] (the true context of grieving the Spirit)[/u:9122a513f2]
[b:9122a513f2]28 [/b:9122a513f2]Let him that stole [b:9122a513f2]steal no more[/b:9122a513f2]: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
[b:9122a513f2]29 [/b:9122a513f2]Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
[b:9122a513f2]30 [/b:9122a513f2]And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
[b:9122a513f2]31 [/b:9122a513f2]Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, [b:9122a513f2]be put away from you[/b:9122a513f2], with all malice:
[b:9122a513f2]32 [/b:9122a513f2]And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

Does Paul say, “Let him that stole name and cite it”? Hardly. He commands those who steal to “steal nor more”—i.e., repent, and cease from stealing. You can’t get more basic common sense than this. Does Paul tell those who are bitter and angry, and speak evil, to confess all their sins to get back in fellowship with God? Does he ever even warn them once that they’ve lost their fellowship? No, he tells them that these things should be “put away” from them—i.e., repent, and cease from these sins. Is this really so hard to understand, ephesians? If anyone else reading this post thinks this is too complicated, feel free to speak up.

[u:9122a513f2][b:9122a513f2]1 Corinthians 10[/b:9122a513f2][/u:9122a513f2]
[b:9122a513f2]5 [/b:9122a513f2]But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
[b:9122a513f2]6 [/b:9122a513f2]Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
[b:9122a513f2]7 [/b:9122a513f2][b:9122a513f2]Neither be ye idolaters[/b:9122a513f2], as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
[b:9122a513f2]8 [/b:9122a513f2][b:9122a513f2]Neither let us commit fornication[/b:9122a513f2], as some of them committed, and [b:9122a513f2]fell in one day three and twenty thousand[/b:9122a513f2].
[b:9122a513f2]9 [/b:9122a513f2]Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
[b:9122a513f2]10 [/b:9122a513f2][b:9122a513f2]Neither murmur ye[/b:9122a513f2], as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
[b:9122a513f2]11 [/b:9122a513f2]Now all these things happened unto them for [b:9122a513f2]examples[/b:9122a513f2]: and they are written [b:9122a513f2]for [/b:9122a513f2][b:9122a513f2]our admonition[/b:9122a513f2], upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Paul uses the example of the Old Testament Israelites to warn the Corinthians about their carnality. He warns them about destructive sins like idolatry, fornication, and complaining, and reminds them of the severe discipline that came upon their ancestors for these very sins. But does he mentions so much as a single word about naming and citing these sins to get back in fellowship? As usual, No. He does, however, admonish them to cease from idolatry, fornication, murmuring, etc. There are so many scriptures on this, that I could end up writing a book on this point alone. Throughout the entire Old Testament, the Israelites were only delivered from their discipline after they turned and [i:9122a513f2]repented [/i:9122a513f2]from their idolatry and rebellion. There is no way I can even begin to get into this here. Read through the historical books and prophets of the Old Testament, and you will see it numerous times.

This is how God has always dealt with His children throughout the Bible, as a Father who cares too much to allow His children to stray too far with chastising them to bring them back to His will. And David was no exception. And, as always, we cannot see the hearts of men, but God can. If David had merely had some superficial emotional experience with no true change of heart and repentance, then his discipline would not have been removed.

Your notion that a “quick naming of sins” removes God’s discipline, makes Him a foolish, incompetent Father. The Lord’s discipline is intended to deliver us from our own backsliding, sinful, self-destructive behavior. It is meant to bring us to [i:9122a513f2]repentance[/i:9122a513f2], so that we will not ruin our lives. If He withdrew His discipline whenever we rattled off our little list of sins to Him, His discipline would not even serve its purpose.

This is one of the most simple, basic, obvious principles in the Bible, that has been generally accepted among Christians throughout history, whether it be the Waldensians and Vaudois of ancient France and Italy; the Lollards, Hussites, and United Brethren of the 14th and 15th centuries; the “Reformed” churches, Anabaptists, and other groups during the time of the Protestant Reformation; or the period of great evangelism and freedom for God’s people in the 18th and 19th centuries. You can search high and low throughout church history for Christians who had this silly idea that you can escape God’s discipline with a “quick naming of sins,” and, to my knowledge, you will never find any. Do you still wish to make an issue over how many are on your side and how many are on mine?

If you really want to make an issue out of what the majority of Christians believe, I can tell you for sure that the vast majority of Christians do [i:9122a513f2]not [/i:9122a513f2]believe that the Lord’s discipline can be avoided by just “naming and citing” the sin, and that they [i:9122a513f2]do [/i:9122a513f2]believe that the discipline will continue without repentance and a change of heart. It is simple common sense and simply accepting the straightforward declarations of Scripture in plain English. By the way, how do you reconcile your argument here with Thieme’s repeated statements that the majority is “always wrong” and “under discipline”? The webpages from your post say the same thing [emphasis mine]:

[i:9122a513f2]Most Christians [b:9122a513f2]don’t even know about 1Jn1:9[/b:9122a513f2], so are not in God’s System. [b:9122a513f2]Their lives are wasted.[/b:9122a513f2][/i:9122a513f2]
(http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/RGBrief.htm#Point7)

[i:9122a513f2]Most Christians [b:9122a513f2]don’t even know about 1Jn1:9[/b:9122a513f2]. So [b:9122a513f2]their spiritual lives are comatose[/b:9122a513f2].[/i:9122a513f2]
(http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/TrueSpirituality.htm)

These statements are partially true. Most Christians know nothing of Thieme’s extreme view on 1 John 1:9. Even Christians who interpret 1 John 1:9 as part of the Christian life do not believe in this constant, minute-to-minute practice of confessing as many sins as we possibly can to stay “in fellowship.” They confess sins perhaps once a day, once a week, or even less frequently. Think about it, ephesians—if a Christian confesses his sins on Sunday morning and manages to stay “in fellowship” for a few hours before he sins again, what happens to him for the rest of the week? He spends almost all his time on this earth “out of fellowship,” “without the power of the Spirit,” and “outside the predesigned plan of God.” And yet you wrote, [i:9122a513f2]“That’s why millions of Christians have been able to have at least a basic and [b:9122a513f2]meaningful spiritual life [/b:9122a513f2]over the last 2,000 years. Because, they read, and believed that Christ died for their sins, and then they read, and believed, that they could confess their sins as needed to God and be forgiven.” [/i:9122a513f2]Come on, ephesians...how can you call this kind of existence a “meaningful” spiritual life? According to your doctrine, these people are only spending a tiny fraction of their lives in God’s will...and yet somehow they have a “meaningful” spiritual life? According to you, they have abandoned their spiritual life, including their prayer life, for most of their lives...and yet they’re not under discipline? Again, Thieme did teach that the [u:9122a513f2]vast majority[/u:9122a513f2] of Christians are [u:9122a513f2]“losers” under discipline[/u:9122a513f2], as do the webpages you cited. “Their lives are wasted,” and “their spiritual lives are comatose.” Are you disagreeing with your own sources?

[i:9122a513f2]You don’t have to understand or even believe that 1 John 1:9 produces fellowship or the Filling of the Spirit, as long as you perform the act. It is completely possible to have an active and meaningful spiritual life, as long as you name your sins to God, [b:9122a513f2]even if you are understanding nothing about the results of the act[/b:9122a513f2].[/i:9122a513f2]

So we can end up “accidentally” rebounding without even knowing what’s going on? Why doesn’t the Bible just simply tell us even once what the “results of the act” actually are? Why is the perfect, holy Word of God so woefully vague on this most vital of doctrines? Why couldn’t one of the apostles have told us just once that an instant filling of the Spirit and an instant restoration to fellowship are the results of confessing our sins? Why is it necessary to grab verses from all over the New Testament with no demonstrable relevance, in order to put this doctrine together? Your doctrine leans way too heavily on one verse, ephesians. Your method (and Thieme’s) is to start with 1 John 1:9 and try to somehow impose 1 John 1:9 on other scriptures, without demonstrating any relevance whatsoever.

You claim that “rebound”—the doctrine that we must confess our sins to be filled with the Spirit—is the “foundation” of the entire spiritual life, yet there isn’t one verse in the entire Bible that simply states this. How do you explain this? If our fellowship with God is really such a fragile thing, instantly broken by every single sin we commit, then why isn’t there a single scripture in the entire Bible that warns us about this, and tells us we need to do something to get it back?

[i:6359c7f16c][b:6359c7f16c]You really need to clarify what you mean here, because either we need to confess sins in an ongoing manner, as Christians, or we don’t, period.[/b:6359c7f16c][/i:6359c7f16c]

This is a loaded statement, ephesians. When you say, “confess sins in an ongoing manner,” what you’re really saying is this:

We must [u:6359c7f16c]name and cite[/u:6359c7f16c] a list of [u:6359c7f16c]every single sin[/u:6359c7f16c] that we’re aware of [u:6359c7f16c]to God in prayer[/u:6359c7f16c], and do it [u:6359c7f16c]moment-to-moment[/u:6359c7f16c], for all the following reasons: (1) an instant restoration of the [u:6359c7f16c]filling of the Spirit[/u:6359c7f16c], (2) an instant restoration to [u:6359c7f16c]fellowship[/u:6359c7f16c], and (3) some kind of [u:6359c7f16c]second forgiveness[/u:6359c7f16c] of sins (assuming you haven’t swallowed Thieme’s heresy that we weren’t even forgiven in the first place at the Cross).

When I talk about acknowledging/admitting/confessing that we’re wrong when we realize we’ve sinned, I am talking about something completely different, because:

• We do not need to be constantly concerned about instantly confessing every sin. This is simply an unbearable burden, if you’re going to practice it consistently according to Thieme’s doctrine.
• It does not need to be done moment-to-moment like “rebound”; it is a matter of the believer’s ongoing walk with the Lord, as the Lord convicts him of sins and weaknesses in his life that need to be dealt with.
• It is for the simple reason of self-judgment/evaluation and repentance, so that we do not fall deeper into sin and rebellion.
• We do not need to go to God in prayer to confess our sins.
• We never lose fellowship with God.
• We are already completely forgiven.

Does the Christian have to admit he’s wrong when he realizes he sinned, and repent? Absolutely. For very obvious Scriptural reasons. We can’t just keep sinning as much as we want and not expect our Father to chasten us. Simple common sense, as described in the above passages. But do we have to name a list of all the sins we realize we’ve committed, every minute of every day, to God in prayer, just to maintain our access to Him? Absolutely not. You can’t just make a blanket statement about “confessing sins in an ongoing manner,” and use it as a justification for “rebound.” You can’t turn self-judgment and repentance into “naming and citing all our ‘known sins’ to be restored to fellowship.” Self-judgment and repentance are a very simple principle presented numerous times throughout the entire Bible. “Rebound” is a constant, minute-by-minute burden on the believer, which compromises our forgiveness of sins and our access to the Father, and is utterly indefensible from the Scriptures. To consistently evaluate our own conduct, or judge ourselves, so that we can identify dangers, weaknesses, and temptations before we even fall into the sin, or so that we can repent from sins we’re already committing, is very different from this constant, minute-by-minute naming of our sins to God in prayer, in order to “re-connect the phone line.” You seem to be trying to make them into the same thing, but they are not the same at all.

Self-evaluation, or self-judgment, must obviously be an ongoing practice for the believer who is growing spiritually. However, forgiveness of sins and cleansing from unrighteousness are most definitely not “ongoing.” These were completely accomplished through the Cross the day we believed in Christ (Acts 5:31, 13:38, 26:18; Rom 4:7; Eph 1:7, 4:32; Col 1:14, 2:13, 3:13; 1 John 2:12; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26-27; 1Jo 1:7, 3:5; Rev 1:5). We’re either forgiven and cleansed from sin, or we’re not, period.

The confession of sin in 1 John 1:9 cannot be ongoing, because its results are absolute and permanent—forgiveness of sins and cleansing from unrighteousness. You can’t make forgiveness of sins mean something totally different from its meaning in the rest of the New Testament, in this one verse, just to force it into Thieme’s doctrinal system. This is an atrocious method of handling the Scriptures. Whether an action needs to be performed once or repeated over time is determined by the [i:6359c7f16c]context[/i:6359c7f16c]. It doesn’t all hang on the tense of the verb (see my 02/13 post), as Thieme would have us believe. This just enables him to play his Greek Game and make the verse say anything he wants.

When John the Baptist came to prepare “the way of the Lord” and preach “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” the Jews came to him “confessing their sins” (Matt 3, Mark 1). (These are obviously [i:6359c7f16c]relevant [/i:6359c7f16c]passages concerning confession of sins, as opposed to all the so-called “rebound synonyms” quoted by Galiban.) These are unsaved Jews coming to hear the Gospel preached. And when they heard John’s preaching, they confessed their sins. Do you seriously think they rattled off a list of all the sins they could think of to John? These are people coming to hear the Gospel of the coming Messiah, and becoming born again and saved. If the confession of sins here were an ongoing, repeated action, then these poor Jews would have had to keep on confessing their sins to be saved. And if confession of sins meant reciting a whole list of all the sins you can remember, then this would have been required for these Jews to be saved. But this was a simple acknowledgment on their part of [i:6359c7f16c]their sins in general[/i:6359c7f16c]. A simple admission that they were sinners who needed the coming Messiah to save them. This is an obvious example of how the [i:6359c7f16c]context [/i:6359c7f16c]must determine the usage of the verb. The same could be said of scriptures like Rom 10:9 and 1 John 4:15. If the verb “confess” was an ongoing action here, then salvation would require an ongoing, repetitive confession. But it is only a one-time confession/acknowledgement of Christ as the Savior that is necessary for salvation. This is how a diligent Bible [u:6359c7f16c]student[/u:6359c7f16c] handles the Scriptures, as opposed to an elitist Bible [u:6359c7f16c]corrector[/u:6359c7f16c] like Thieme, who rewords verses to his own liking to make them fit his doctrines. A true Bible student understands that we can always establish the truth by diligently comparing relevant scriptures—”comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” because “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Sin comes into our life in many forms, in varying degrees, and for different lengths of time. Some sins are more difficult to deal with than others, depending on our own personal weaknesses and lusts. Obviously, a momentary thought of anger or complaining because the Dunkin Donuts employee put too much sugar in our coffee is quite different from an ongoing lifestyle of extra-marital sex. That one complaining thought is not going to invoke divine discipline, unless it is followed by many more, and starts to develop into an ongoing habit of inner anger and/or overt complaining. The Lord knows the heart, and He knows exactly when and how He needs to intervene in His child’s life with discipline. And it will be different with every one of His children, for no two of us are the same. Once this happens, repentance, a change of heart (not a “quick naming of sins”) is necessary to escape the Lord’s chastening. And this is exactly what happened with David when Nathan faced him down. David expresses a profound repentance and change of heart in his Psalms written after the Bathsheba affair—not just a “quick naming of sins.” How foolish it would be to think that we could continue in our anger and complaining, or our adulterous affair, and never be disciplined as long as we keep rattling of our little list of sins to God.

When we find ourselves falling into a mental sin like anger, or a verbal sin like complaining, we should check ourselves, [u:6359c7f16c]acknowledge that it’s wrong[/u:6359c7f16c], and stop. To simply acknowledge that what you’re doing is wrong is hardly the same thing as going to God in prayer to name and cite a list of your sins, in order to regain your “lost fellowship,” regain the filling of the Spirit, and receive some sort of “second forgiveness,” even though the sin was already forgiven the day you believed in Christ. This is why I can say, “Obviously, whenever we fall into sin, we need to admit we’ve sinned and repent,” and also, “There is nothing here that implies the constant, mechanical performance of the ‘rebound’ ritual every time we have a wayward thought.”

Self-judgment should be an ongoing, daily exercise for God’s people; we should be diligent and alert to the temptations of our flesh and the deceptions of the world. Obviously, the more we grow, the more wisdom we’ll have and the better prepared we will be to face these things. As far as “how often” the Lord convicts us of sins and other things in our life that need to change, that can vary greatly from one Christian to the next, depending on their relationship with God. How often and how thoroughly we need to judge and evaluate ourselves depends on each individual Christian’s spiritual growth. And again, this has nothing to do with [i:6359c7f16c]naming a list of sins to God in prayer[/i:6359c7f16c]. As we’re going through these times of change, adjustment, repentance, etc., we can always have the complete peace and assurance that we are always in fellowship with our Heavenly Father through the blood of Jesus Christ, and there is never a time when our access is denied and our prayers are not heard.

[i:6359c7f16c]Perhaps your emphasis is on the word “[b:6359c7f16c]constant[/b:6359c7f16c]”, can you clarify what this means?[/i:6359c7f16c]

According to your doctrine, at [i:6359c7f16c]any moment [/i:6359c7f16c]during every day of our lives we could lose our access to God. We all have a nature in us that is utterly sinful, through-and-through. And we are accountable to a holy God in many ways concerning our conduct—even more so as Christians, because we commit many “sins of omission”; not only do we disobey God by doing things we [i:6359c7f16c]should [u:6359c7f16c]not[/u:6359c7f16c] do[/i:6359c7f16c], but we also very often [i:6359c7f16c]fail to do things [/i:6359c7f16c]that we [i:6359c7f16c]should do[/i:6359c7f16c]. And according to Thieme’s doctrine, [i:6359c7f16c]any unknown sin [/i:6359c7f16c]breaks our fellowship with God; therefore, we are in imminent danger of losing fellowship at every moment during our life on earth. When we truly understand the ugliness and corruption of our old sinful nature, and what sin really is to God, then “rebound” becomes an impossible burden. Our “rebounding” must be “[b:6359c7f16c][i:6359c7f16c]constant[/i:6359c7f16c][/b:6359c7f16c],” “never-ending,” “continual,” “non-stop”... I’m not sure how many adjectives you need to get the point, ephesians.

[i:6359c7f16c]If we do, as you [b:6359c7f16c]seem [/b:6359c7f16c]to imply, though you are vague about it, then we need to know [b:6359c7f16c]how often[/b:6359c7f16c], at one point, which sins? etc. You seem to imply by your first statement that, yes, we should confess, but not to get neurotic about it.

[b:6359c7f16c]Once in a while[/b:6359c7f16c]...just the bad ones? [b:6359c7f16c]Who then determines what the line you cross is? [/b:6359c7f16c]One act of adultery? Two? Three lies? Just confess [b:6359c7f16c]once a week[/b:6359c7f16c]? [b:6359c7f16c]Here and there?[/b:6359c7f16c]

I make sure I do it before my Bible study, before I go to bed at night, and [b:6359c7f16c]at various intervals [/b:6359c7f16c]throughout the day...[/i:6359c7f16c]

You ask [i:6359c7f16c]how often?[/i:6359c7f16c], [i:6359c7f16c]once in a while?[/i:6359c7f16c], [i:6359c7f16c]here and there?[/i:6359c7f16c], etc. What is ironic here is that you are the one who needs to answer these very questions. Since, according to your view, our fellowship can be instantly broken at any time, without us even realizing it, then “how often” do we need to rebound? “Once in a while,” perhaps? “Here and there”? You say that you rebound “before my Bible study, before I go to bed at night, and [b:6359c7f16c]at various intervals [/b:6359c7f16c]throughout the day.” How long are these “intervals”? And how much of your prayer, service, etc. during this “interval” ended up being meaningless to God, because you unwittingly cut the phone cord?

[i:6359c7f16c]Can you please tell me the difference between “sin” and “wayward thought”? These would not be one and the same?[/i:6359c7f16c]

Of course a wayward thought is a sin, ephesians. I can’t imagine how this could actually be confusing to you. I am simply emphasizing what an impossible burden “rebound” is—that every time we commit any sin at all (even without realizing it) our connection to our Heavenly Father is broken, and we must immediately get it back by “rebounding,” otherwise we can’t even pray or serve Him in any way. If we commit a sin unawares, we could easily spend the rest of the day “out of fellowship” without even knowing it, and no matter how diligently and faithfully we prayed, served, and studied during that time, it would all be pointless. As I wrote in my second post on 01/22, “The slightest little mental attitude sin instantly severs your connection with God. Our access to our Heavenly Father becomes totally dependent on our never-ending, exhausting efforts to make sure we perform our little ‘rebound’ ritual EVERY TIME WE SIN.”

You have chosen to ignore my challenge concerning Thieme’s heretical denial of the forgiveness of all sins through the Cross. I challenged you several times on your claim that Thieme’s doctrine of “winners” and “losers” in heaven was “metaphorical,” and you ignored me again. (I’m still waiting for the other Thieme followers here to speak up on these issues.) I asked you twice if shame is [i:6359c7f16c]definitely [/i:6359c7f16c]in store for the “losers” at the Lord’s return, and once again you refused to answer me. I showed you the description of spirituality versus carnality in 1 Cor 3, and apparently you have no answer. I challenged you to demonstrate the connection between 1 John 1:9 and Eph 5:18, and once again...silence. You’re nitpicking a descriptive phrase like “wayward thought” while ignoring such serious doctrinal questions.

[i:6359c7f16c]We can’t paint with shades of gray when our spiritual lives need to be led by black and white.[/i:6359c7f16c]

Ephesians, any Christian with the most rudimentary knowledge of the Bible understands that our spiritual lives are in a continual state of change—spiritual growth and change for the better, or backsliding and change for the worse. Our eternal destiny and standing with God—forgiven sinners clothed with the perfect righteousness of Christ—is absolute, unchangeable, and black and white. You are either born again and in eternal union with Christ, or you are not. But our spiritual condition in this life is very different. We are all at different stages of spirituality. There is no such thing as a Christian who is absolutely spiritual. Just look at the usage of the word “spiritual” in the New Testament, and this is obvious. Yes, we are led by the perfect standards of God’s Word, and the more we grow spiritually, the more those standards will be manifested in our lives; but to think we have an “absolute,” “black-and-white” state of spirituality is just foolish.

I realize we all have our obligations, ephesians, but this is no excuse for not even attempting to give me a short answer to some serious theological questions (even when I only asked you for a simple Yes or No). I again challenge you and very Thieme follower on this forum to give me some kind of justification for Thieme’s heresy concerning forgiveness of sins. This is probably the most serious issue of all related to our discussion, yet so far none of you have even dared to address it. Will any of you give me an answer? ephesians? Galiban? GeneZ? riosilk? gr8nurse? Anyone?

In closing, ephesians, I'll comment on your closing statement: [i:6359c7f16c]“...whether we like it (or accept it) or not, everyone posting here lately will be together in Heaven, based on His imputed righteousness we received when we believed. We are all in union in the Body of Christ.” [/i:6359c7f16c]This reminds me of your previous post in which you said, [i:6359c7f16c]“And by the way, I [b:6359c7f16c]completely agree [/b:6359c7f16c]with you..we are all in union in the Body of Christ, and regardless of our doctrinal differences, [b:6359c7f16c]we will be with Him for eternity[/b:6359c7f16c].”[/i:6359c7f16c] I then reminded you that what I really said was, [i:6359c7f16c]“I believe that other Christians can disagree with my theology and still [b:6359c7f16c]glorify God and serve Him faithfully[/b:6359c7f16c].” [/i:6359c7f16c]You obviously do not believe this, ephesians; you believe that those who neglect “rebound” have [i:6359c7f16c]abandoned [/i:6359c7f16c]their spiritual life, including their prayer life. This is typical of those in the Thieme camp—you talk about “union in the Body of Christ,” but what you really believe is that the Body of Christ is split into “winners” and “losers,” and that no one can glorify God and serve Him faithfully, if they reject your doctrines. You obviously did [u:6359c7f16c]not[/u:6359c7f16c] agree with me at all.

Galiban quote

Quote

1st Peter 5:3 And do not lord it over5 those entrusted to you,6 but be examples to the flock.

The pastor is assigned certain people under him. Conversely, the congregation has a pastor teacher assigned to them.

How he does that is entirely up to him and not open to scrutiny. If it was, the verse would state “I charge you before God, Christ Jesus, the elect angels and all other Pastor Teachers…..”

I want people to see this. I guess should ask Galiban "are you tired this time?"

This is unadulterated Thiemite cultic authority propaganda. This is what Thieme indoctrinated innocent people with, but it's a false hood. 1 Peter 5:3 is addressing [u:fbea58124d][b:fbea58124d]ELDERS - PLURAL![/b:fbea58124d][/u:fbea58124d] NOT ONE JUST ELDER. AND IT SAYS FOR ALL THE ELDERS TO BE AS EXAMPLES TO GOD'S PROPERTY. [u:fbea58124d][b:fbea58124d]MULTIPLE EXAMPLES[/b:fbea58124d][/u:fbea58124d] NOT JUST AS ONE EXAMPLE AS THIEME FALSIFIES. CHECK FURTHER THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION OF A SINGLE ELDER.

[bible1.crosswalk.com]#

Thieme is saying that 1 elder(wrong) should be just 1 example(wrong) to God's property.

THIS IS GOD'S PROPERTY ALL OF IT. UNDER GOD'S ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY ALL THE TIME!

GOD IS NOT SHARING WITH THIEME! IT'S GOD'S PROPERTY AND IT IS NOT TO BE RULED! IT IS NOT TO BE LORDED OVER! THIEME IS NOT FREE TO LORD OVER GOD'S PROPERTY, WITHOUT SCRUTINY!

Quote

He is charged before God and answerable only to God when he fails in carrying out the commands that are laid out in this book of the Bible. He is charged with ensuring that all instructions for the church are held to. He is given the authority over the church.

1 Timoth 5:21Charged before God, Jesus and elect angels, but it says Thieme confuses being charged with be answerable. It clearly states in 1 Timothy 5:19 [u:fbea58124d][b:fbea58124d]Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. [/b:fbea58124d][/u:fbea58124d]AN ELDER IS CLEARLY ANSWERABLE TO WITNESSES. GOd is in absolute authority over the church, Thieme was at best an equal elder christian brethren answerable to other christian witnesses.


TRUTHTESTY

Galiban quote

Quote

Quote:
1st Timothy 5:19 Against an elder an accusation receive not, except upon two or three witnesses

Hey Galiban I assure you I have more than two or three witnesses. You didn't mention this in your context.
Truthtesty


The accusations must be taken to the Pastor Teacher from the members of the congregation.
1 You are not a member of the congregation
2 A Pastor is not held accountable to the congregation.
3 This is referring to a Deacon or another elder in the church.
4 The Pastor Teacher is in complete control of his church and only answerable to God.

point 1 (even though Galiban thinks a rational point is useless) I was forced to attend the Berachah cult against my will when I was 17. I was forced to make a choice between submitting to Thieme and eating. I eventually was kicked out because I refused to listen to Thieme's falsehoods. point 2 A pastor is held accountable by christian witnesses period, before God be they of a certain congregation or not, regardless of Thieme's false property line drawing. point 3 Elders are teachers. point 4 God is in complete control of his property and Thieme was answerable to witnesses.


TRUTHTESTY

As I stated to Galiban earlier

Quote

You can't even find the scripture in the bible that gives 1 pastor sole authority over 1 congregation. Your only comment was:

Galiban quote:
"The difference I gather is that Thieme believes, that a believer is assigned a specific pastor (The reason for the title Right Pastor-Teacher).

Truthtesty stated:
Thieme "believing it and stating it" or "not believing and stating it" doesn't make it a biblical fact. There is "no reason" for the title "right-pastor" it doesn't exist in biblical fact.

TRUTHTESTY

Quote

To all Thiemites:

Again I challenge any Thiemite to show me the verse(s) and the greek exegesis that proves 1 pastor has sole authority over his own single congregation. No one has proven this. Yet Thieme claimed it regularly for decades. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so spiritually tragic. With all thier submission to Thieme, apparently, for decades, Thiemites never bothered to use thier own logic and greek exegesis to question Thieme's exegesis (cultic).
In the 1970's (as a teenager), I was given a greek lexicon. I could see that Thieme was not translating greek exactly. In other words Thieme was not "interpretively paraphrasing". Thieme's "corrected translations" were actually Thieme "spinning" the greek possibilities for word choice to fit Thieme's extremist militant right-wing cultic agenda. I was attacked for decades because I said that Thieme was mistaken. It is with great satisfaction to see that I was correct in the truth and false Thiemites crawling away from me defeated.

Truthtesty