This is beginning to degenerate into a flame war.

First warning, and I have deleted a couple of flames at this point.

brainout and GeneZ:

Can either of you peg something Thieme got wrong?

What teachings did he promote that were mistaken?

Did he ever behave in a way you thought was negative?

To the Forum:

Truthtesty stated:

Quote

What was Thieme excuse of stopping all questions during class? It wasn't really "class" after that was it? It became a dictation at that point. I mean because in a real classroom where you are able you ask questions, in the act of asking a question your using critical thinking.

genez, all you had to say was it disrupted class.

This in itself does not prove it to be a cult, but it contributes to the degradation of the listeners critical faculties while being dictated to. I am also noting that it was a "group dynamic" change. That was my point in my last post. I have already proven why it's a cult. Show me the verse or verses that prove that 1 right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation.

And don't bow before me.


TRUTHTESTY THE CONFIDENT

[b:06585de67a][Moderator note: the caps and titles are just a bit over the top don't you think?][/b:06585de67a]

Quote
Truthtesty
genez qoute

Quote

I realize that. But I wish to take the wind out of his sails because his approach and attitude needs to be toned down. His sense of overconfidence needs balancing. His attacks need to be shown from what kind of person he is.

That will never happen.

AND if Thieme wasn't cultic in the first place and hadn't attacked my family, then this conversation wouldn't be taking place. I don't start fights I finish them.


Truthtesty

I will ask a third time...

How did Thieme attack your family?

Back up your accusation, please.

In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
My personal beliefs are my own. I have said before that if Paul's words contradict Jesus's words then Paul's words are "out the window".

Colonel Thieme taught many times. That many things Jesus said were to Jews, as a Jew, who were all yet under the Law. Many of the things (not all) that Jesus taught were directed towards those living in the age of Israel. Law. Not, grace...

Quote

Pauline christians would like to give the appearance that all words in the bible are equal, but they are not. That's just common sense. I didn't need a special lexicon or a pastor to tell me that.

Yes, you definitely do need someone to tell you. Because you still have no idea that the Jewish age, and the Church age, are not the same things. Living under Law, and living under grace, are not the same way to live under God as a believer.


1 Peter 1:10-11 (New International Version)
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." [/size:33af2c61fa][/color:33af2c61fa]

There is a grace that has come to the Church age believer that jesus was never able to address while speaking to Jews who lived under the Law. Jesus spoke as a Jew, to Jews. In the Church age a whole new dispensation has come. One where Spirit and Truth give us our power to live before God. OT saints did not receive this grace.

Quote

The books of the bible were put together by a bloodthirsty murderous Caeser named Constantine, who worshipped Mithras (Sun-god worshipper at the time and did so for political unity) He was the one who said "By this sign conquer", not Jesus. So pardon me or don't pardon me for being very skeptical of Paul who was a self-confessed Roman citizen, murdered other christians, never met Jesus in the flesh, was not an orignal apostle, had a huge confrontation with Peter(rock) and James and ran(cheesed) to his Roman buddies to save his skin.

Peter approved of Paul.

Matter of fact, Peter made it a point to mention what kind of person had a hard time coming to terms with Paul.

2 Peter 3:16 (New International Version)
"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."[/size:33af2c61fa][/color:33af2c61fa]



In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
rrmoderator
brainout and GeneZ:

Can either of you peg something Thieme got wrong?

What teachings did he promote that were mistaken?

Did he ever behave in a way you thought was negative?

Yes, rrmoderator, a number of things, quite a few. Thieme himself brings them up, regularly. It's his standard practice to bring up something he previously taught which was wrong or not quite right enough. It's a regular feature of the recorded live classes, actually. The greatest such event in the 53 years seems to be his desire to can everything he taught prior to 1985, when he was exegeting Ephesians. We had to start over THREE TIMES because Thieme was disgusted with himself. It's all on tape (very long, though).

Personally he would have been very wrong to can (destroy) all the prior classes, because the exegesis is very good, very provable (for example) in BibleWorks.com software (they only provide Bibles and lexicons, study tools, and are of no denomination). I'm grateful to whomever in the leadership, STOPPED him from making good on that wish.

[b:bb8ac491dc]So rrmoderator, if you would be more specific about what doctrines he retaught you want me to discuss, I'd appreciate it. [/b:bb8ac491dc] There are over 15,000 recorded hours here, and I have everything on tape he ever taught up through 2001. I need specificity.

Here's a quickie example, though, on no-soul-life-in-womb. This doctrine, like all the others, is a kind of thread reappearing throughout the live class tapes (which do wander around, since so many doctrines tie together). So back during Roe vs. Wade, he revisited the doctrine. Finally he concluded that Roe vs. Wade was right, and then spent time explaining the whole doctrine in light of it. Basically, the idea was that although there is no soul life in the womb, if the fetus was left alone, it COULD be born in the third trimester. I think he was consulting with rabbis and other teachers too, to decide what position to take and thus make public. This re-visiting took place just after Roe vs. Wade came out, so was 1973 or 74 and it spanned something like a month. In short, it was a viability-of-birth question.

Now, if you view what he said on the surface, you could argue that he revised what he had said. He even says he's revising it. So, makes corrections, shows what he said wrong prior, why it was wrong, what is right, and here-in-the-Bible is why it's right. That's his S.O.P.

But frankly, long before I KNEW these lessons, I had concluded the same facts from the older 1960's teaching (which is rather strident, and understandably so). I mean, the mother is ALIVE -- the fetus, only potentially alive -- so you DO NOT take the life of the mother. But were I a mother, I would not seek an abortion because what if GOD wanted it to be born? That was my conclusion from hearing the doctrine of Exo21:22 and the bizillion mi passages, taught.

As to behavior, well -- back in the 1960's the normal criticisms against him were the way he made certain inflammatory remarks about how affirmative action was wrong, remarks stridently against communism and appeasing the Russians, etc. You can find these criticisms on the internet, so I'll not repeat them here. And he did make the remarks, though I think the context on the tape itself reveals why -- context is usually removed from the internet requotes.

Pretend for the sake of argument that the removal of context didn't make the remarks quoted, misleading. Still, that's the person as distinct from the teacher. My college professors made remarks which I found upsetting, too, but that didn't invalidate their teaching of the subject matter. The idea is to filter out what's not germane to learning. Here, learning the Word of God. Teachers are human. We should cut them some slack and allow that they are human, so will on occasion, mix their personal opinions with what they are given to teach.

As a person matures in Christ, pastor or no, his behavior mellows. You can say that about maturing in any faith, I suppose.

Short-take #1 -- what was "Thieme's final answer" re forgiveness at the Cross. This was raised by Testy. Thieme spent maybe 100 hours' class on this question, which you can obtain (subsumed under the "Law of Double Punishment" subseries within 92 Spiritual Dynamics, series #376). The answer is very technical, is centered on whether apolutrosis is used in Attic Greek or koine; and I'm not sure it's within the purpose of this forum, to say more. Someone pm me for details. But anyone can just order the tapes to hear it himself.

Short-take #2, about whether Blood of Christ was DTS teaching. In the original thesis by Dr. Wall, Dr. Walvoord had a lengthier preface speaking to that question. This has been excised from the revised copy of the thesis which you can get on the internet. Which means, you cannot get the original and use it. So although I know what the original says versus the revision, it would violate the thesis copyright to reprint the original. Only DTS or Dr. Wall, would have that right.

My suggestion is that anyone who wants to verify the DTS position, should just write to DTS for clarification. What Thieme has had to say on it for 53 years, is on tape for anyone to acquire without cost.

My stronger suggestion is to review Bible on the topic, testing whichever of the two ideas (spiritual death payment or physical death payment), before the Lord. After all, it's not about what people say pro and con a thing, but what's the truth of that same thing. It really matters that one understand the truth, here. Jews and Christians and Moslems essentially divide over the idea, and of course within those faiths, divide further over the ramifications. So it's an important question, never mind what pastor or seminaries argue.

Quote
rrmoderator
brainout and GeneZ:

Can either of you peg something Thieme got wrong?

What teachings did he promote that were mistaken?

Did he ever behave in a way you thought was negative?

There was a period when he was reacting to critics, and reacting to what was going on in the country. It was during the time when the Vietnam Anti war movement was going on and the nation was degenerating into making drug use and sexual promiscuity into a accepted way of life.

He was both enraged and heart broken at the same time. He was seeing what was once a great nation falling apart as he knows history repeats itself. He loves America with a deep passion. He and Barry Goldwater were close friends.

In time, after things stabilized a bit, he was no longer in that mode of thinking. Sadly... some of the gentler spirits first being exposed to him during that era? If they were [b:0ab25bf460]not[/b:0ab25bf460] there strictly for the teaching alone? They would have been confused. For this was not your typical sweetness and light church.

Thieme was determined to make the teaching of the Word - as accurately as he could - to be the only thrust.

At that time America was beaten up and on her knees. We were fallen as a people. It was in vogue and many were becoming an authority onto themselves. So, Thieme stepped on the gas and magnified his authority in reaction. That's when it happened. During that time. Not before, nor after that phase.


Many in America at that time had become anti military. He in turn taught many excellent teachings on the military and war from a Biblical perspective. I learned about the battle tactics of battles recorded in the Bible in a very informative way. He was very qualified for what he was doing. Very few were.

I learned more about the military from the pulpit than I ever did while in the service. Some whined and complained about his thrust. They thought that was a cult. Yet, many appreciated it. There were complaints on his pro military stand. Yet years before it happened he was already warning about the Muslim threat. I was learning about a Jihad well before the word ever made it to the news. he said that the Muslim fanatics will be a threat. He also equated rigid Christian fundamentalism to the same spirit found in the Middle east. That did not please the legalists.

He mellowed back down after those who were negative backed off from attacking him, and many around the country began to be positive to his teachings. Like I said in an earlier post. I was living in MA. I had been exposed to some of his books. His words hit home with me. The very same things that bothered me about mainstream Christianity at that time, he was exposing in his teaching.

But.. I did not decide to listen to RBT tapes. That only happened after I heard a message given by a pastor (who was not affiliated with RBT) preach a message. After that messahe is when I found my way to the teachings of Thieme.

The pastor pounded a point home during this particular message. His premise was that any believer who is living in any area of his life, if its not according to Bible doctrine... that in that area the believer is a liar before God. He said that as believers we need truth for every area of our lives which is according to Bible doctrine. I never heard the word "doctrine" used before in a message by this pastor.

I walked out after that message stunned by what I had just heard. I prayed deeply..."Father, in Jesus name.. give me Bible doctrine for every area of my life." I prayed that short prayer as I was walking down the hall after hearing that message.


Within a minute, a woman I was friendly with approached me. She asked me if I would like a book her brother left behind which contains a 1000 Bible doctrines. Without hesitation, I told her "yes!"

Within a few days she got the book to me. It was not what I expected. It was a huge notebook with mimeographed (remember, this was 1981) pages of 1000 Bible doctrines. All concise, and with Greek and Hebrew exegesis. It was compiled by Ralph G. Braun DD, DTS graduate.

Turns out Pastor Braun compiled these doctrines while sitting under Thieme in the early 60's. It was concise like Readers Digest. I knew it was an answer to my prayer.

I became absorbed by reading all these answers I was searching for, for years. Finally, after getting all these basics down, I felt confident to start ordering tapes... Which I did, and have not looked back since.

Then it happened. Students from a local Bible college who I worked with began to harrass me after they found out I was listening to Thieme. They began bringing up Thieme's teaching on the blood of Christ. Which is why I researched and studied so hard to verify what Thieme taught. Ironically, I found my verification from the reference books to be found in their library which I had permission to visit.

During that time I began to learn what kind of opposition AND UNREASONABLENESS that the Colonel must have faced. I began to become reactionary like he was. I also began to understand why he was that way. So, from then on it was no longer an issue, and I appreciated his perserverence.

Thieme received threats. I know first hand from some who were working in the ministry. One account was about a man who stood up during service with a revolver in its holster. He just stood there and stared at Thieme. Those around him were relieved when he finally sat down.

Yes, Thieme was quite overbearing during that certain phase of his ministry. Yet, it was at a time when immorality and anti-Americanism was becoming overbearing in the media and the culture. To wish to be patriotic was sneered at by many. Thieme reacted and stood proud. He gave the anti authority crowd what they wished to eliminate from our culture. That is one reason that so many Houston Police were members of that ministry.

So, that is about his behavior that was viewed as negative by those who did not agree with him. And, if I did not? I would have seen it as negative, as well. I understand.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Since 1999 I've been trying to audit my own faith and that of Christianity at large, to derive a synthesized 'big picture' understanding of what 'the truth' is. My websites are the product of that, not authoritative, designed only for brainstorming. Due to the controversial nature of some of the conclusions, I don't promote the sites. The writing style is deliberately abrasive to forestall 'groupies', since any controversy tends to gather them around the writer.

As a result, I've tentatively concluded that it's not so much about what Thieme or any other pastor gets wrong or right, but rather that Christian theology is undergoing another 'reformation', owing largely to the wholescale distribution of original-language Bible texts (collated etc. by Tregelles et al. in the mid and late 1800's). So what you see being argued by, for, or against Thieme himself, is part of a larger metamorphosis in teaching, all over the world. You see the same thing happening with respect to the teachings of Watchman Nee toward the beginning of the century. Lots of breakaway teachers who no longer wanted to keep the original-language texts among the theologians. Each of these individuals is criticized. From what I can tell -- again, whether Thieme or not -- a good part of the criticism is unfounded. It's necessary anyway, of course. This is how a discipline thrashes out any kind of advance. Can't be pretty.

So to be honest, I think what Thieme and others are doing, is a kind of REFINING of the theology. Raising the level of the discussion above the GOD101 basics which seem to plague us. I for one am sick to death of the competition, my-denomination-versus-your-denomination. Who cares? But, people do.

Amidst all this, the only doctrines Thieme teaches which I cannot yet prove true from Bible, are these:

[b:53221f3ce2]1. That fallen angels cannot be saved.[/b:53221f3ce2] Thieme used to teach they could be saved; see the early Satanology series, for example (refined annually or so). But he did an about-face in the year 2000 (about April, I can find the exact lesson number if you want it), and he only spent two hours on it. During that time, it sounds to me from the tapes that people in the congregation were disputing him on a number of doctrines, interrupting the topic he was on (which was about the Love of God). So he didn't get the chance to present a longer answer. I've tried to figure out what that might be, and so far cannot validate it as either untrue or true.

[b:53221f3ce2]2. That the Daniel 9 timeline structure ONLY applied from the time Daniel got it, to the Crucifixion.[/b:53221f3ce2] That timeline is actually a basic accounting unit, how God orchestrates time. You'll not find anyone else on the internet contend this, but me. I discovered it by accident, spent two years documenting the accounting principles and developing the timeline to show the 490-year time grant units, hoping that folks can investigate the matter on their own. Here I am convinced it's true, and if Thieme ever taught this, I don't yet know about it. In his Daniel 9 tapes which are very old, he only mentions it in the mainstream sense (i.e., it was a specific grant of time which ended at the crucifixion). That mainstream view is very common, easily obtained if you search on "Daniel 9" on the internet. I just don't agree with it, now. Doesn't matter that I don't agree, and no one I know agrees with me, either.

This is what I mean by refining. Many questions are left unexplored in Christianity, with people instead all standing on their respective turfs shouting "I'm more right than you are!" But, that's human nature for you.

Quote
Truthtesty

This in itself does not prove it to be a cult, but it contributes to the degradation of the listeners critical faculties while being dictated to. I am also noting that it was a "group dynamic" change. That was my point in my last post. I have already proven why it's a cult. Show me the verse or verses that prove that 1 right pastor has sole authority over his own congregation.

The church constitution? Can you get a copy of it? If you do? It would show he was not the sole authority as you make it appear to be. He was the sole authority in setting what is to be taught. The deacons had say in administration, and Thieme could be voted out if they wanted. They just never wanted to. They could have.

I know you complain about the deacons that were there before him. But, after the church started afresh, never again did anything like that happen. That would be like Reagan keeping on all the advisers of the Carter administration. It just would not work.


Hebrews 13:16-17 (New International Version)
"And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. [b:c089254ac3][u:c089254ac3]They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you[/u:c089254ac3][/b:c089254ac3]."[/size:c089254ac3][/color:c089254ac3]


That was written at a time when there were apostles and pastors heading over churches. It was also written to be read in the churches that met in homes. So, leaders were mentioned in the plural. How many pastors are you to have in one church at a time? Some believe in a plurality of elders. Yet, elders can include deacons. Multiple of pastors? Those who do not believe in a multiple of pastors? It indicates we are to submit to the pastor of our church... to his authority.

Ephesians 4:11 NIV
'It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, [b:c089254ac3]and some to be pastors and teachers.[/b:c089254ac3]"[/size:c089254ac3][/color:c089254ac3]

All pastors are elders. But not all elders are pastors.

In many churches pastors are traditionally the head of the church. Then there is administration under his overseeship. Its when someone like Thieme comes along who is very strong in authority, that some wish to deny the pastor his place. It becomes an issue to those who despise authority. After all? Who felt the sting of his authority? Those positive to learning the Word of God? Or, those who were negative.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (New International Version)
"In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you [b:c089254ac3]to show which of you have God's approval.[/b:c089254ac3] "[/size:c089254ac3][/color:c089254ac3]

Good teaching will cause divisions... Its supposed to.

In Christ, GeneZ