Sister:


I whole-heartily agree with your nail-spitting post! ;)



Truthtesty

Well, expositor, you continue to misrepresent Reformed Theology and have only continued to make unsubstantiated assertions regarding Sproul. So, you only hurt your own credibility by characterizing and misrepresenting anyone's theology. So, you really haven't answered any of the questions.

Expositor, where would you recommend someone go to church? What denominations, if any, in your opinion, are no longer corrupt and preach the true gospel?

Chris

Expositor quote

Quote

To understand what went wrong with the ministry of Thieme, it is necessary to look beyond theology.

Indeed, on the whole, the theology of Thieme is is unremarkable, being in essence the theology of traditional Protestantism, with [b:3e110160b1]the attendant legacy of heresy which Protestantism inherited from Papistry.[/b:3e110160b1]

Truthtesty
Would you be more specific as to the details of "[b:3e110160b1]the attendant legacy of heresy which Protestantism inherited from Papistry[/b:3e110160b1]."?




Truthtesty

[u:2acb7397e1]voltaic:[/u:2acb7397e1]
[i:2acb7397e1]Finally, even if some of Thieme's teachings are unsound, or going to the extreme if everything he teaches is false, then the Bible still does not allow us as brothers to attack him to anyone else. Best case scenario, we may bring it to his attention alone, or separate from him. We may even [b:2acb7397e1]point out doctrinal issues with others and encourage them to separate from him[/b:2acb7397e1].[/i:2acb7397e1] [Isn’t this exactly what I am doing on this forum?] [i:2acb7397e1]But never are we called to public excoriation of his person. [/i:2acb7397e1][bold emphasis mine]

Hello, voltaic, and welcome.

You have cited many scriptures in reference to treating our brethren graciously, with which I wholeheartedly agree. (Thieme, however, did not; he spent his life mocking and denigrating anyone who disagreed with his teaching.) This is the basic rule of Christian conduct when dealing with the weaknesses and failures of our brethren. This is how our Lord Himself treated all the fallen sinners He met during His earthly ministry. But His dealing with religious elitists who robbed the people of their spiritual liberty was very different. There are numerous scriptures throughout the Gospels (which I’m sure you’re familiar with) where He openly berated them as “vipers” and “hypocrites.” And in Thieme’s case, we are not dealing with the typical Christian brother who has strayed from his Christian walk or been misled or confused by some false doctrine, and needs some gentle reproof and exhortation. We are dealing with a man who has lorded it over God’s people, robbed them of their spiritual liberty, taken the Bible out of their hands, and insulted and degraded any who do not see things his way, as well as teaching outright heresies that deny the Finished Work of the Cross. If you have read my posts, you have already seen documentation of this, which you are not even attempting to refute. It is completely Biblical to boldly and openly rebuke the Pharisees in the Church who have shown nothing but contempt and scorn for their own Christian brethren.

[b:2acb7397e1]Prov 27:5-6[/b:2acb7397e1] Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

We see Paul and John giving “open rebuke” to those who lorded it over their brethren or taught heresy. These rebukes were publicly written in epistles that were distributed to all the churches for all the brethren to see. You can’t get more [i:2acb7397e1]public [/i:2acb7397e1]than this. Yet you say that we can only “bring it to his attention alone”?

[b:2acb7397e1]3 John 1:9-10[/b:2acb7397e1] I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

[b:2acb7397e1]1 Tim 1:19-20 [/b:2acb7397e1]Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

[b:2acb7397e1]2 Tim 2:16-18 [/b:2acb7397e1]But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Even the apostles themselves were not immune to public rebuke, as I demonstrated in my post addressed to ephesians1:3.

[u:2acb7397e1]Posted: 05-15-2007; Post subject: The False Doctrine of “Right Pastor” (part 2)[/u:2acb7397e1]

[b:2acb7397e1]Gal 2:9-13 [/b:2acb7397e1]And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Here Paul publicly rebukes three different men (Peter, James, and Barnabas) from two different cities (Antioch and Jerusalem). How does this fit into your notion that a pastor should not challenge anyone outside his own church—especially if Paul is supposed to be your “example” of how your “right pastor” functions? When a pastor like Thieme spends his life degrading his Christian brethren, then he should be reproved by other pastors around him. True Christian love does not just allow a brother in Christ to go on and on in his elitism and his insults against his brethren, as well as his serious doctrinal errors, without trying to recover him. “Open rebuke is better than secret love,” and “faithful are the wounds of a friend.”[/color:2acb7397e1]

You say that “There is not one passage in the New Testament under which we live which instructs us to criticize and evaluate another person,” but 1 Timothy 5:19-20 says, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin [b:2acb7397e1]rebuke [u:2acb7397e1]before all[/u:2acb7397e1][/b:2acb7397e1], that others also may fear.”

Public rebuke or exposure of a man’s heresies and elitist practices is not “excoriation” of his person; otherwise, John the Baptist, the apostles, and Christ Himself would have been guilty of this. Exposing and refuting a man’s false doctrine and cultish domination of the conscience of believers, is not “excoriation” of his person. We can rebuke him, even publicly, and still love him as a brother. This all-or-nothing approach that you are espousing is not at all Biblical. You are conveniently emphasizing the scriptures on love and patience, without citing any scriptures on rebuking and challenging. If we cannot apply these scriptures in Thieme’s case, I don’t know when we can ever apply them.

[i:2acb7397e1]Best case scenario, we may [b:2acb7397e1]bring it to his attention alone[/b:2acb7397e1], or separate from him.[/i:2acb7397e1] [08/29]

[i:2acb7397e1]I agree that we are taught by Scripture to rebuke brethren in false doctrines and errors and such, but I take this to mean [b:2acb7397e1]going to them directly[/b:2acb7397e1]. [/i:2acb7397e1][08/31]

As already documented above, these scriptures do not exclusively refer to “going to them directly.” Should the Reformers not have spoken out publicly against the pope and the Catholic Church? Should they have just tried to resolve things privately with Pope Leo or Pope Sixtus? After all, there are Christians within the Catholic Church, aren’t there? As far as directly addressing Thieme himself, that has already been done by others (with no effect), and is no longer possible. And since the propagation of his destructive false doctrines is still being continued by Berachah and other churches, these things need to be addressed, privately and publicly, to help those who are still falling under Thieme’s ongoing influence, and to protect others before they get sucked in like we once did.

I have freely acknowledged that Thieme had teachings that were good (see below). But this does not excuse the tremendous damage he has done with his false doctrines and his extreme elitism. As I already stated in my posts addressed to ephesians1:3…

[u:2acb7397e1]02-01-2007[/u:2acb7397e1]
For many years, Thieme taught an obvious contradiction—[/color:2acb7397e1]he taught the finished work of the Cross and that our salvation was complete at the moment we believed in Christ, and that all our sins (past, present, and future) were washed away and forgiven. I am sure that souls were saved, and for this much I must give him credit.[/color:2acb7397e1] However, after teaching the completeness and efficacy of our Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross, he turned around and taught that even after we’re saved, we still have to “name and cite” our sins to be forgiven again. He tried to justify this by inventing the unscriptural theory of two kinds of divine forgiveness—“salvation forgiveness” and “post-salvation forgiveness.” But this theory just doesn’t work. …

[u:2acb7397e1]02-13-2007[/u:2acb7397e1]
This is a subtle move, ephesians. You are trying to justify Thieme’s legalistic, elitist teachings concerning the spiritual life by appealing to[/color:2acb7397e1] his grace teachings concerning salvation. As I said earlier, I am glad that Thieme taught the finished work of the Cross (although he later compromised this).[/color:2acb7397e1] But this is no excuse for telling God’s people they can’t understand the Bible and scaring them into submission with the fear of the sin unto death and eternal “loser” status if they dare to depart from his doctrinal system. Regardless of what he taught concerning salvation, the destructive consequences of his other teachings should be exposed.

[u:2acb7397e1]06-12-2007[/u:2acb7397e1] [/color:2acb7397e1]
I am sure you initially learned some truth from Thieme that helped you.[/color:2acb7397e1] But there is far more teaching from Thieme that is utterly unscriptural and has done great damage to many of God’s people. His excessive authoritarianism and especially his attitude toward Christians from other churches are inexcusable. [/color:2acb7397e1]

[i:2acb7397e1]It is my [/i:2acb7397e1]opinion [i:2acb7397e1]that some here, in their zealous desire to expose their disagreements with Thieme's teachings, have gone far beyond this and are in danger of acting in sin; not because they are right or wrong, but because of the motivations of their hearts. I think this has been demonstrated a number of ways, both by [b:2acb7397e1]outright false statements [/b:2acb7397e1]and personal attacks.[/i:2acb7397e1]

This statement is a lot like many other statements by the Thieme followers on this forum. You make a statement without backing it up with any documentation whatsoever. If you’re going to publicly declare on this forum that forum members are making “outright false statements,” you are now accountable to show us these false statements and show us why they are wrong. You can’t tell us that there are “outright false” statements on this thread just because you say so. If I have made any false statements, then please show them to me and refute them, and I will be glad to make the appropriate corrections.

[i:2acb7397e1]I have read most of the posts in this thread since the beginning and am concerned about one thing that I would like to bring to everyone's attention, but [b:2acb7397e1]I am not going to quote threads or cite specific instances [/b:2acb7397e1]because that gets away from my point.[/i:2acb7397e1]

You accuse the forum members of “outright false statements,” but you also say, [i:2acb7397e1]“I am not going to quote threads or cite specific instances.” [/i:2acb7397e1]You’re trying to say that forum members have made false statements, while avoiding any accountability to show any evidence that they are false. You remind me of Galiban using his “highway & ramp” theory to avoid any accountability to actually demonstrate any relevance between the scriptures he cites. Followers of Thieme love to make big bold statements about the errors of others, but it’s like pulling teeth, trying to get specific documentation from them.

In my posts I have thoroughly exposed the inaccuracy and destructive results of Thieme’s teachings and practices. I have shown how legalistic and unscriptural many of his doctrines are, and the bondage and fear it causes in people’s lives. I have done this primarily to help others who have been damaged by Thieme’s false doctrine and his elitist contempt for others. It also serves as a warning to those who may be looking into Thieme’s teachings. And of course it challenges those who are promoting Thieme’s destructive doctrines. People who view this forum have also expressed their appreciation, because if I had not done so, they would not have seen this kind of documentation. Are you saying it was wrong for me to do so? (I wouldn’t know, since you’re not giving us any specifics.)

[i:2acb7397e1]It is my [/i:2acb7397e1]opinion [i:2acb7397e1]that some here, in their zealous desire to expose their disagreements with Thieme's teachings, have gone far beyond this and [b:2acb7397e1][u:2acb7397e1]are[/u:2acb7397e1] in danger of acting in sin[/b:2acb7397e1]; not because they are right or wrong, but because of the motivations of their hearts. I think this has been demonstrated a number of ways, both by [b:2acb7397e1]outright false statements [/b:2acb7397e1]and [b:2acb7397e1]personal attacks[/b:2acb7397e1]. [/i:2acb7397e1][08/29]

[i:2acb7397e1]Frankly [b:2acb7397e1]I [u:2acb7397e1]don't remember[/u:2acb7397e1] who said what [/b:2acb7397e1]in the past as I only read through the whole thread one time and posted based on general impressions. … I simply don't remember who said what; I only remember the general thoughts expressed in the thread. [b:2acb7397e1]It may turn out that if I go back I will only see unChristian posts from [u:2acb7397e1]people who aren't here any more[/u:2acb7397e1]. [/b:2acb7397e1][/i:2acb7397e1][08/31]

Initially, you say that some of us here “are in danger of acting in sin”; and anyone here who is an opponent of Thieme is naturally going to wonder if you’re referring to him/her. But you don’t want to be bothered with getting specific. And now maybe the “unchristian posts” were only from former posters? Could you please tell us if there are any [i:2acb7397e1]present [/i:2acb7397e1]posters in danger of sinning against God? So we can avoid any more “sinning”? You stated that some of us “are in danger of acting in sin” because of the “motivations of their hearts” demonstrated by “outright false statements”; but when you’re challenged, you have this convenient lapse of memory: [i:2acb7397e1]“I don't remember who said what.” [/i:2acb7397e1]This is really a very weak copout, voltaic. Also, you enter the forum making these [u:2acb7397e1]public[/u:2acb7397e1] claims that forum members are “in danger of acting in sin” with their “outright false statements,” but after being challenged several times by Testy, you say you’ll address his statements [u:2acb7397e1]privately[/u:2acb7397e1]. If you’re going to make criticisms in public, then you should be prepared to show evidence in public.

[i:2acb7397e1]Let me begin by saying that I agree with some of Thieme's teachings and disagree with others. I am not a "Thiemite" and was never a taper, although I do have many of his booklets.[/i:2acb7397e1]

You sound very much like a Thieme follower to me. You are going to great lengths to curb the criticisms of Thieme on this forum, while avoiding any accountability to publicly back up what you’re saying. Do you attend a church or listen to another pastor who teaches Thieme’s doctrines? Can you give us a list of Thieme’s doctrines that you actually disagree with?

Thanks,
Liberty

To the Forum:


Voltaic has not contacted me privately, either.



Truthtesty

THIEMITE SAID:

Quote
"thiemite"
voltaic,

Welcome to the forum. You may get all sorts of replies to your assertions ranging from mild to wild. As has been suggested, you should definitely be more specific rather than general so specifics may be addressed.

A lot of the posters on this thread are people that believe and have demonstrated how they have been adversely affected by Thieme's teaching ministry.

Some things here and elsewhere on-line represent Thieme's position fairly and others don't. That is the nature of discussions like these and is driven by people's memories among other things. With that said, I think there is enough publicly available information that demonstrates where several of the doctrines taught by Thieme deviate drastically from the historic Christian faith and how those false teachings have had very adverse and harmful logical conclusions or applications in the lives of Thiemites and others influenced by Thieme. As far as I know, most of the information that I'm aware of was made known to Thieme before it was made public as it should have been. The church as a whole has an obligation to all people to point out error and help people, especially fellow Christians, steer clear of bad teaching and false teachers.

Not everyone on this forum is a professing Christian so, expect them to not share your viewpoint on how things should be handled.

ETC ETC.....

COMMENT:
VERY WELL SAID INDEED. Thanks for your candor and clarity as well as your even handedness.

Sincerely
Sistersoap

A wolf by nature is a predator; he ravages the flock and kills and devours sheep. As a wolf grows old, he loses speed and strength, but until the day he dies, he remains a danger to the flock; his nature does not change.

As I discuss in my article on Thieme, the teaching of the Scripture regarding rebuke covers two distinct cases. In the case of a brother who trespasses against a brother, to the extent possible the matter is to be handled graciously and in private. But in the case of a wolf in sheep's clothing or an incompetent, unfaithful hireling, the matter is to be handled in public and no mercy is to be extended. The offender is to be marked and driven out of the local assembly.

He who is merciful to the predator thereby displays disregard, contempt, and even hatred for the flock.

To Expositor:


Just a minor note that you might want to change. You say on page 15 of [www.gospelbroadcasting.org]

Quote

"In the scheme of Scofield there are seven dispensations: Innocency, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, and Kingdom. The dispensational scheme of Chafer essentially is the same as that of Scofield, [u:0274b45212]except that Chafer substitutes the label ‘Church’ for Scofield’s label ‘Grace’[/u:0274b45212].

Truthtesty
This is not true. Chafer uses Grace not Church. I think it was Thieme who used "Church" to describe Chafer's "Grace". As I said before I think many people have confused much of what Thieme said with Chafer.


Chafer Systematic Theology Vol 1 p 40
(1) The Dispensation of Innocence
(2) The Dispensation of Conscience
(3) The Dispensation of Human Government
(4) The Dispensation of Promise
(5) The Dispensation of the Law
(6) The Dispensation of Grace
(7) The Dispensation of Kingdom Rule



Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty
Would you mind showing me the verse that would call for the heads of a false teacher if they were physically harming someone in thier family and teaching the bible at the same time?

I'd recall the scriptures which declare that Christians are to follow the laws of the land (Mark 12:17; Acts 25:8; Romans 13:1-6; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14,17). Therefore if someone is physically harming another, they are subject to the penalties of those laws. It has nothing to do with whether they are a pastor or not, teaching falsely or not; it is simple submission to earthly authority.

Quote
thiemite
voltaic, you still have not answered my question in regards to where you go to church. That would at least give me an understanding of where you are coming from doctrinally. I am a Christian by God's grace and Reformed & Presbyterian by conviction. It is helpful to know where people are coming from so that when we use similar terms we can understand the different nuances that should be applied. Most of the posters here have, in previous posts, said what there background is (professing Christian or not).

Fair enough. I'm a non-denominational Protestant Christian. Very plain vanilla. My personal library includes five or six translations of the Book, all of Lewis Sperry Chafer's works, some Thieme books, some books on the Old Testament by Merrill Unger, some Kierkegaard, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and the writing of Eusebius and Origen. It's not terribly impressive, but those plus the internet serve me pretty well.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
Hello, voltaic, and welcome.

Thank you for your post. I appreciate replies which include scriptures instead of emotional appeals, anecdotes, and so forth.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
But His dealing with religious elitists who robbed the people of their spiritual liberty was very different. There are numerous scriptures throughout the Gospels (which I’m sure you’re familiar with) where He openly berated them as "vipers" and "hypocrites."

This is true, but in all of the passages where he referred to them as vipers or hypocrites or etc., he did so in their presence (Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 15:7, 23:33; Luke 12:56, 13:15, 20:45-47).

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
We see Paul and John giving "open rebuke" to those who lorded it over their brethren or taught heresy. These rebukes were publicly written in epistles that were distributed to all the churches for all the brethren to see. You can't get more [i:d9a121ae79]public [/i:d9a121ae79]than this. Yet you say that we can only "bring it to his attention alone"?

[b:d9a121ae79]3 John 1:9-10[/b:d9a121ae79]
[b:d9a121ae79]1 Tim 1:19-20 [/b:d9a121ae79]
[b:d9a121ae79]2 Tim 2:16-18 [/b:d9a121ae79]

3 John reads to me as a response to a previous letter (3 John 4) written directly to another pastor (3 John 1). I note that John had already previously written directly to the church with Diotrephes (3 John 9), aka addressed him directly. Interestingly, two of his specific sins mentioned are malicious gossip and not welcoming other brothers.

I read both Epistles to Timothy as private letters from an Apostle to a pastor to help him deal with specific troublemakers in the early church. In the case of Hymanaeus and Alexander, Paul had "turned them over to Satan". We don't [i:d9a121ae79]really[/i:d9a121ae79] know what this means, so in my opinion it's hard to say this is something as simple as a rebuke, or that it never included going to them directly.

...

In writing my reply to this, I see where I have erred in this forum. I have been saying that we should only rebuke each other in person or privately, and not publicly. I chose my words poorly here. I mean that we should only rebuke a brother in person, peronsally, face to face, etc.

So when I have previously said "personally" or "in private" I didn't mean locked away behind closed doors, I meant in their presence. And when I have said we should not do it "publicly", I meant in a public place when they aren't there, like a newspaper, internet forum, etc.

I see how this has led you to the above part of your post and other people as well, and that's my mistake with sloppy word choice. My apologies.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
[b:d9a121ae79]Gal 2:9-13[/b:d9a121ae79]

Here Paul publicly rebukes three different men (Peter, James, and Barnabas) from two different cities (Antioch and Jerusalem). How does this fit into your notion that a pastor should not challenge anyone outside his own church—especially if Paul is supposed to be your “example” of how your “right pastor” functions?

To me, Paul is rebuking Peter alone, and mentioning that James and Barnabas fell into his falsehoods. But in any case, I respond by quoting the very next verse (emphasis mine):

Galatians 2:14 "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, [i:d9a121ae79]I said to Peter in front of them all[/i:d9a121ae79], "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Paul is now publicly recalling what he already did years before in the presence of the person rebuked. But he doesn't express any contempt or other negative emotions against Peter or the others either time.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
You say that "There is not one passage in the New Testament under which we live which instructs us to criticize and evaluate another person," but 1 Timothy 5:19-20 says, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin [b:d9a121ae79]rebuke [u:d9a121ae79]before all[/u:d9a121ae79][/b:d9a121ae79], that others also may fear."

I don't see criticizing or evaluating here. Rebuke for a sin which multiple people have seen publicly, sure. But that's not a further evaluation of the person; it's against the sin, not the sinner (if I may use a common phrase). I believe this interpretation meshes completely and perfectly with the dozens of other Scriptures I posted previously, including the many that in plain English say to not judge one another.

And in any case, it certainly isn't full of hate, anger, spite, revenge, etc.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
You are conveniently emphasizing the scriptures on love and patience, without citing any scriptures on rebuking and challenging. If we cannot apply these scriptures in Thieme’s case, I don’t know when we can ever apply them.

Christ said that love (for others and for God) was the fulfillment of the entire Scripture, so I don't know how it can be over-emphasized. Would giving your life for another be over-emphasis? Perhaps some critic would denounce such a suicide, but Christ said that is the greatest demonstration of love possible. Paul said that love is greater than both faith and hope, the two parts of our so-great salvation! I don't believe that love can be over-emphasized.

And FWIW, I think that challenging others on doctrines is exactly what some of us are doing here now, in each others' presence, and that this is a perfectly legitimate application of how we can apply them. Just because Specific Person A cannot rebuke Specific Person B does not make the whole thing useless.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
Should the Reformers not have spoken out publicly against the pope and the Catholic Church? Should they have just tried to resolve things privately with Pope Leo or Pope Sixtus? After all, there are Christians within the Catholic Church, aren’t there? As far as directly addressing Thieme himself, that has already been done by others (with no effect), and is no longer possible. And since the propagation of his destructive false doctrines is still being continued by Berachah and other churches, these things need to be addressed, privately and publicly, to help those who are still falling under Thieme’s ongoing influence, and to protect others before they get sucked in like we once did.

The Catholic Church is not a person that can be maligned or gossiped or addressed in person, it is an entity make up of thousands of people and many doctrines. When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, they were specific citations of beliefs that disagreed with the Church, not calls for the head of Pope Leo or Friar Tetzel or any others.

If you bring up the first page of posts on the "Destructive Churches" forum, you will notice that only one thread talks about a man specifically. The rest are all against groups and denominations. Or something like "Catholics are wrong because they believe X" compared to "Catholics are ignorant heretics becuase they believe X". That's the difference.

I think once again my emphasis is losing focus. I am not and have not said that publicly posting doctrinal critiques or differences with Thieme or any other pastor is wrong. If I have said it, it was an error spread out now over many posts when perhaps I misspoke. I have only said (and meant to say) that every person who does so should be careful to examine his own motivations and make sure he's doing it for the right reasons, and in any case should avoid attacking any person directly. I again cite Wall's extremely carefully written Opening and Conclusion in his thesis, which was a public critique of doctrine only.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
In my posts I have thoroughly exposed the inaccuracy and destructive results of Thieme’s teachings and practices. I have shown how legalistic and unscriptural many of his doctrines are, and the bondage and fear it causes in people’s lives. I have done this primarily to help others who have been damaged by Thieme’s false doctrine and his elitist contempt for others. It also serves as a warning to those who may be looking into Thieme’s teachings. And of course it challenges those who are promoting Thieme’s destructive doctrines. People who view this forum have also expressed their appreciation, because if I had not done so, they would not have seen this kind of documentation. Are you saying it was wrong for me to do so?

Again, challenging doctrines is not a problem. So no, I would not say it was wrong to do so.

Quote
SpiritualLiberty
You sound very much like a Thieme follower to me. You are going to great lengths to curb the criticisms of Thieme on this forum, while avoiding any accountability to publicly back up what you’re saying. Do you attend a church or listen to another pastor who teaches Thieme’s doctrines? Can you give us a list of Thieme’s doctrines that you actually disagree with?

Top of my head, I have convictions (plus scriptures) that disagree with Right Pastor, Right Man/Right Woman, certain aspects of Rebound, certain aspects of his presentation of Spirituality, certain aspects of the "Christian Warrior", and probably others. I also have reservations about certain methods in his teaching, such as the use of novel and confusing vocabulary, etc. I don't really have a comprehensive list written down anywhere.

Quote
Truthtesty
Voltaic has not contacted me privately, either.

True. Here's why: "Reply to this post publicly if you agree to this." For someone who criticized me for missing one small post among your many replies, you sure seem to have missed huge chunks of my replies back to you.

Truthtesty wrote:

Quote

Would you mind showing me the verse that would call for the heads of a false teacher if they were physically harming someone in thier family and teaching the bible at the same time?

Voltaic quote

Quote

I'd recall the scriptures which declare that Christians are to follow the laws of the land (Mark 12:17; Acts 25:8; Romans 13:1-6; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14,17). Therefore if someone is physically harming another, they are subject to the penalties of those laws. It has nothing to do with whether they are a pastor or not, teaching falsely or not; it is simple submission to earthly authority.

I have a real simple one for you Voltaic. If the Anti-christ was in charge of the entire earthly authority(or maybe even another Hitler figure instead of the anti-christ) and was "physically harming someone in your family" Would you agree with earthly authority then? Would you follow that earthly authority? If you would answer YES, then why would sane people in society, not consider YOU a parasitic threat to society? Could you be any more vile? At that point, I would never underestimate how low you could sink. Why shouldn't the sane people of society create laws to put you in jail or in an insane asylum, based simply because of your beliefs?

I think as time goes on this issue will be brought out on the internet, and sane people of this world will begin to see the truth of what's really going on in some churches. We are already seeing the madness of Islamic beliefs with Al Qaeda. We have seen the madness of Timothy McViegh's beliefs (christian identity group), David Koresh, BTK Killer, Andrea Yates, Jim Jones etc... I think future laws will be "fine-tuned" to take care of the likes of "Voltaic"s of the world, along with "thier version" of "brotherly love."


US Law describes torture as a criminal act. Psycological torture is one aspect of torture, therefore crimnal and against US Law.

Quote

Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”

[hrw.org]

What Thieme has taught, what I have experienced, what other's I have seen experienced, and what other's have told me they have experienced, certainly qualifies as Psycological torture.

If you can't contact me privately, like a man, without my consent if you think I am doing wrong, then honestly I could care less about what you think, other than to find a way to help create laws to put people like you in jail.




Truthtesty