thiemite -

I am a Christian. Period.

And you in your thinking are incredibly superficial, to ask such a question.

Look at my web site: www.gospelbroadcasting.org.

RLH

To Expositor and the Forum:


There are many distinctions between Catholics and Protestants. This is the reason I asked "Would you be more specific as to the details of "the attendant legacy of heresy which Protestantism inherited from Papistry"? So I could at least separate what you thought of Catholics vs. Protestants. However, there are many distinctions within Protestants themselves. You consistently state "Thieme and other Protestants". Here I think you are reducing to many problems(internal Protestant conflicts) to 1 phrase. Chafer would have considered Thieme's teachings on "the Blood of Christ" as satanic, as well, he would have considered yours satanic. Is someone trying to assume ALL of God's knowledge, when assuming that there was nothing "mystical or magical" about the Blood of Christ. In scripture how many instances are there of "mystical or magical"? For ex: Was not the Virgin Birth "mystical or magical"? How can we describe that in total infinite definition? We cannot. How was Christ's blood different than Adam's blood? than our corrupt blood? [b:9ef9bff800]Was not Jesus’ nature and thus blood "pure" from the Virgin Birth?[/b:9ef9bff800] It seems to me that it was. [b:9ef9bff800]Do you not ignore this?[/b:9ef9bff800] Although, not I, nor anyone else can describe in infinite detail what that meant. We have corrupt blood. We have blood disorders that the best doctors throughout the world cannot find a cure for the blood diseases. That is just the corrupt blood that we do not understand, let alone trying to understand the pure blood of Jesus. But what other things are "magical and mystical"? [b:9ef9bff800]Is not everything[/b:9ef9bff800] in it's essence not "magical and mystical"? Life? - We cannot create corrupt human life in a laboratory. Death? - How could you possible say that "Christ Jesus died as all men die"? We do not know the infinite aspects of corrupt man's death, let alone perfect man's death. All we have is a few clues to what Jesus said as he was dying. There are many theories as to how Christ died [www.rsm.ac.uk]. Chafer mentions Dr. Stroud. Blood? - I already talked about. The earth spinning at approx 3600 mph? The simple leaf on a tree apparently does not have a brain, but it is capable of acting and processing in nature at a higher level of intelligence than we can understand. The leaf separates Hydrogen and Oxygen, naturally. This is one of the reasons we humans are alive, because we need oxygen. The best professors at MIT cannot understand how the leaf does it. If we could ever figure out how it does it, then we would resolve the energy problem for planet Earth, because we would have an endless supply of hydrogen. So yes, everything is "magical and mystical" at some level. To say that the "Blood of Christ" was not "magical and mystical" to me is simply ignoring the obvious facts of the life and the bible.

Dr. Wall's dissertation describes the "Blood of Christ" "

Quote

Thieme's position evaluated. Thieme is correct in observing that the term blood of Christ is a pregnant term with figurative significance. The problem with Thieme's interpretation is that he restricts the term solely to the spiritual death of Christ and fails to see that it includes not only his spiritual death but also his physical blood and the whole act of dying physically. Such a use of the term is a common literary device in the New Testament known as a “synecdoche,” that is “a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole.”28 Acts 27:37 (A.V.) furnishes an example: "We were in all in the ship two hundred three score and sixteen souls." Here souls is a synecdoche for the whole person. [b:9ef9bff800]The "blood of Christ" is a synecdoche for the entire event of the crucifixion of Christ on Golgotha, which included the nailing of His hands and feet, His bleeding, His blood, all of His physical suffering of the cross, His separation from the Father as He bore the sins of the world, His physical death, and the piercing of His side.[/b:9ef9bff800]

Chafer quotes

Quote

Quote
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. [b:9ef9bff800]It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. [/b:9ef9bff800]It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. [b:9ef9bff800]Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood [/b:9ef9bff800](cf. 1 John 1:7)"

Quote:
"The challenge of this inexhaustible thesis is yet further extended when it is remembered that the theanthropic Person who suffered and died is none other than “God manifest in the flesh.” It was God who suffered and it was the blood of God that was shed (Acts 20:28 ).

Quote:
The gaal individual must also be able to redeem. The price, whatever it might be in any case, was paid by the one who redeemed. This requirement was imperative in the type as it is in the antitype. Christ alone could pay the price of redemption—the blood of a holy, undefiled, and spotless Lamb. The blood of a man, especially of a fallen race, would not suffice. It must be the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28 )

Quote:
"Christ cannot save by His crown, by His authority, or by His glory. He can save only by His precious blood. Even His power cannot save us apart from the atoning sacrifice which He has made."

Truthtesty

To Expositor and the Forum:


You should be aware of Chafer's refutation of the Arian position. Vol. 5 pg 7,8. Chafer includes the Westminister Confession with his explanation. Part of which follows:

Quote

"[b:ed811bb013]The Lord has Himself declared that “all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father[/b:ed811bb013]” (John 5:23). The Son is dishonored when assigned a lower place than that of the Father. Such dishonor to the Son is displeasing to the Father, and a ministry is vain indeed which, though sincere, advances under the displeasure of God. The Deity of the Father is all but universally admitted, so also the Deity of the Spirit; but the Deity of the Son is challenged. Such a doubt would not have arisen had the Son not become incarnate. It is His entrance into the human sphere that has provided a field for unbelief. Thus it is required the more that the exact testimony of the Word of God should be given in its full authority. As though the divine Author anticipated the temptation to unbelief which would exist through misunderstanding of the theanthropic Person, the strongest evidence is supplied concerning the Deity of Christ. The Scriptures are as clear and conclusive in their expressions respecting the Deity of Christ as they are respecting His humanity. His humanity is revealed by the natural method of ascribing to Him human titles, human attributes, human actions, and human relationships. Similarly, His Deity is disclosed in the same manner by ascribing to Christ divine titles, divine attributes, divine actions, and divine relationships.

Truthtesty

expositor,

You are specifically and explicitly denying the deity of Jesus Christ which all professing Christians adhere to. So, to ask you if you are a Jehovah's Witness seems completely warranted considering you could go down to your local Kingdom Hall and find many people who would agree with you regarding what you have asserted here.

Your doctrine of who Jesus Christ is coupled with your denial of the deity of Jesus Christ puts you so far out of the realm of Christian orthodoxy that for you to claim to be a Christian seems absurd.

I have checked out your site. I found nothing that asserts what you just did regarding who Jesus Christ is. I did find several alarming things like your article where you assert that interracial marriage is a blasphemous sin, basically equating it to sodomy and lesbianism.
[www.gospelbroadcasting.org.]

It would seem that you, like Thieme, are interested in drawing disciples after yourself and believe that you have an exclusive market on the truth. That definitely would explain why you disparage "all protestants" and would not identify a single denomination that you believe teaches the true gospel and is a true church. There should most likely be a group up here to help those who have fallen under your sway.

What do you do with verses like John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God? Or, John 1:1, 14, Or where Jesus is worshiped )Heb. 1:6, Matt. 2:2, 11) What about John 2:19-21 where Jesus says that He will raise Himself from the dead?

'Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body.' John 2:19-21

truthtesty, you were right to identify expositor as an Arian, that is exactly what he is asserting and that is what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach too. That's why I asked. At this point, you have at least, shown your cards so that people will know where you are coming from and your theology has been identified for what it is, a variant of the Arian heresy.

expositor, are you the Russell L. Harris of the gospelbroadcasting.org website? I'll be praying for you and for Russell.

That which we know with surety is that which is declared in the pages of the Scripture. But even as it was during the period of the Incarnation, so also it is today: men knowingly set aside the Scripture in order to follow the teaching of tradition.

The Scripture declares that the Word was God (that is, a member of the Godhead), that the Word was with God (that is, God the Father), and that the Word was the Creator. And the Scripture declares that this entity, the Word, became flesh, the man Christ Jesus -- a transformation which necessarily involved the laying aside of the attributes of deity. The Scripture declares that Christ Jesus was tempted, but that he did not succumb to temptation through sin. The Scripture declares that Christ Jesus laid down his life for the sheep, in order to redeem them and bear the sin of the world. The Scripture declares that Christ Jesus was buried, and subsequently was raised from the dead by God the Father. The Scripture declares that man, rather than possessing a "soul", IS a soul, the term "soul" meaning simply a creature or being. The Scripture declares that man is composed of the chemicals of the earth, that he is animated by a God-given spirit of life, and that the Resurrection is a transformation in which mortal, corruptible flesh is changed into immortal, incorruptible spirit. The Scripture portrays the Resurrection as a new birth, and declares that Christ Jesus is the firstborn out from the dead. The Scripture declares that the dead have no consciousness -- that they cannot think, cannot see, cannot hear, cannot speak, cannot experience pain or oppression; nor are even the righteous dead able to thank or praise the Lord, or testify concerning his marvelous works.

But tradition teaches that Christ Jesus is a hybrid being resulting from an alloying, a bonding, or a cloaking of the divine nature with the human nature. Tradition teaches that, because of the union of the two natures, this hybrid being could not be tempted and could not sin. Tradition teaches that Christ died for sin only in the sense that the human nature of Christ underwent a temporary "separation" from God the Father -- a separation which lasted roughly three hours, and which ended prior to his physical death. Tradition teaches that this separation from God is the death of which Adam was warned by God, and that it is a "spiritual" death. Tradition teaches that Jesus raised himself from the dead, in a demonstration of his deity. Tradition teaches that man in essence is an immortal spirit entity termed a "soul" which resides temporarily in a body of flesh. Tradition teaches that at death the soul, leaves the body and goes immediately to a place of torment called "Hell", or else to Heaven. Tradition teaches that, whether in Heaven or in Hell, the disembodied soul is in a conscious state, and is able to think, to see, to hear, to speak, and to experience pain -- all without benefit of the corresponding organs of the body.

During the period of the Incarnation, Jesus demonstrated the error inherent in the tradition of the Jews -- a body of oral tradition which had its origin in the Babylonian captivity and which today has been codified and is known as the Babylonian Talmud. Jesus condemned the Pharisees, who set aside the Scripture in order to follow their own tradition.

In the present era, beginning with the Protestant Reformation, men thinking themselves loyal followers of Christ Jesus have developed their own body of tradition, which is known as The Westminster Confession. Like their spiritual forebears the Pharisees, these men today set aside the Scripture in order to follow their own tradition.

RLH
The 3rd of September A.D. 2007

Russell L. Harris, Evangelist
The Gospel Broadcasting Association
Post Office Box 1555
Houston, Texas 77251
rlharris@gospelbroadcasting.org
www.gospelbroadcasting.org

To russell:

I just asked you 15 questions. In return, you answer none of my questions. Instead, you try to play a rhetorical repetition word game of: scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture, ..... tradition, tradition, tradition, tradition, tradition, tradition, ..... leaving people with one option to consider what your saying as possibly true, without actually having engaging in honest debate. In other words, it's only about what you think and you could care less, about what other people think. I don't know what kind of imbeciles you have been fooling with your games, but I assure you there are no imbeciles here. Just because something is tradition doesn't mean it's not scripture. Up until this point, it seemed we were having an intelligent conversation, except for your rude remark to Thiemite. If you continue in this manner, we'll have no choice but to recommend the moderator to boot you. Answer the questions or leave.




TruthTesty
September 3rd, 2007 Anno Domini

truthtesty wrote:

Quote

I just asked you 15 questions. In return, you answer none of my questions.

Most, if not all, of your questions clearly were rhetorical in nature, with some being followed immediately by your own answer.

If my position is wrong, would it not be a simple matter to take my assertions and refute them with the Scripture?

For example, if -- as the Westminster Larger Catechism asserts -- Christ Jesus came forth from the tomb of his own power, you would need to provide only two or three citations of the Scripture (not according to the "two or three witnesses" principle, but simply to demonstrate that there is no misinterpretation) which declare the fact. Of course, you also would need to demonstrate that the dozen or two passages which declare explicitly that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead are not to be taken literally.


truthtesty wrote:

Quote

...it's only about what you think and you could care less, about what other people think.

I care about that which the Scripture declares and teaches. If your thinking leads me to a better understanding of the Scripture, then I am interested in that which you think.


truthtesty wrote:

Quote

...with your games

I don't engage in "games". I happened across this forum and posted a simple note with a link to my article on Thieme, intending to do nothing more. I even refrained from posting contact information, in respect of the published forum etiquette. However, I began receiving queries from the members of this forum, whereupon I have done nothing other than to respond to queries which have been put to me, including queries regarding my name, my organization, and my web site.

If you challenge specific assertions which I have made, I shall be happy to answer them, and to do so with citations from the Scripture. But rhetorical questions of the nature, "How can you possibly believe the things which you believe?", are intended to silence and discredit, rather than to pursue truth.

If you have no interest in such an exchange, I gladly shall leave you to your private discussions. And in parting, I urge you to heed the exhortation of the apostle Paul:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." -- I Thessalonians 5:21

RLH

To Expositor:


Did the majority of my 15 questions reflect tradition? No.

Do these sound like rhetorical questions?

Quote

"Was not Jesus’ nature and thus blood "pure" from the Virgin Birth? It seems to me that it was. Do you not ignore this?"

Thiemite and myself offered scriptural assertions for you to refute.

Did it not appear as if I was honestly and objectively trying to analyze your position?


Expositor quote

Quote

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." -- I Thessalonians 5:21

Right - Did you happen to notice my name? Also, Have you corrected your article yet?



Truthtesty

truthtesty -

"testy" is a proper appellation for you; stop the charade regarding "truth". You dissemble with almost every word you speak, and you habitually accuse others of that of which you yourself are guilty. In short, you behave like the unregenerate Jew.

Almost all of your questions are rhetorical, and almost all reflect the fact that you are steeped in Protestant tradition and mired to the neck in the heretical legacy which Protestantism inherited from Papacy.

You say:

"Did the majority of my 15 questions reflect tradition? No."
"Do these sound like rhetorical questions?"
"Quote: "Was not Jesus? nature and thus blood "pure" from the Virgin Birth? It seems to me that it was. Do you not ignore this?"

In these words you refer to a Protestant tradition regarding the origin and genetic transmission of a "sin nature". According to this tradition, the sin of Adam somehow (mystically, if you will) altered the very genetic structure of Adam, the result being a "sin nature" which is transmitted to the progeny of Adam, the male gamete being the agent of transmission. (Thus, supposedly, the necessity of the virgin birth of Christ.)

But the Scripture does not teach the concept of a genetically-inherited sin nature. The concept -- like so many of the false concepts found in Protestantism and in Papacy -- is based upon conjecture and unwarranted assumption. The virgin birth of the Christ was a miraculous sign to Israel -- not, as both Protestant and Papal tradition hold, a prophylactic.

In dealing with this tradition, theologians are careful not to attribute to God this act of creation, for they reason that to do so would be to make God the author of sin. So -- even as the evolutionist attributes Creation to the non-entity which he terms "Chance" (R. C. Sproul has a nice discussion of this) -- so also the theologian attributes the generation of the sin nature to the non-entity which he terms "the sin of Adam".

In spinning and propagating the myth of a genetically-transmitted "sin nature", the theologian conveniently overlooks the fact that Adam needed no sin nature to incite his rebellion against the governing authority of the Lord God. Why should the progeny of Adam need such an impetus?

And the theologian appears oblivious to the fact that the reason for which the progeny of Adam are born under the condemnation of sin is that the Lord God in his sovereign prerogative has imputed the sin of Adam to the progeny of Adam. While every man sins, it is neither personal sin nor a hypothetical, genetically-inherited "sin nature" which makes man by birth a sinner. Rather, it is the arbitrary, undeserved judicial imputation of guilt by which every descendant of Adam is born a sinner.

Another Protestant tradition which has no Scriptural support is the conjecture that death was unknown within the natural realm prior to the fall of Adam. However, the truth of the matter is that every natural creature has a finite lifespan, so that death is an integral part of the Creator's design for the natural realm. Genesis 3:22 clearly attests to this fact. The Lord God designed big fish to eat little fish, big birds such as falcons to feed upon little birds and rodents, and big mammals such as lions to feed upon little mammals such as sheep. And the Lord God designed land creatures ranging from eagles to swine to flies, and sea creatures ranging from sharks to lobsters, to feed upon (and thus, dispose of) carrion. (That is why such creatures are declared "unclean" and evermore shall remain so; it is a gross misinterpretation of the vision of Peter to claim that God has removed the distinction.)

This is all part of the natural order; it is not the result of a fantastic transmogrification of creatures which also is attributed to the sin of Adam. The Christian scientist Hugh Ross recognizes and teaches this fact. I discuss the matter in a blog article titled "Did Creatures Die Prior to the Fall of Adam?", which is posted at:
[gospelbroadcasting.org].

The sin of Adam was an act of rebellion against the governing authority of God. But Protestant tradition implies and requires that the sin of Adam be an entity which is endowed with creative ability, and moreover, with the power and prerogative of altering the structure and function of the natural order, so that animals which once were herbivorous became carnivorous, and did so in a single generation. Thus does the traditional Protestant demonstrate himself to be an evolutionist whose zeal and faith in the concept of evolution puts to shame the secular evolutionist.

Protestantism is full of such tradition and myth. And it is this tradition and myth which distinguishes Protestantism from the Christian Faith of the Scripture.

RLH
The 4th of September A.D. 2007

This forum thread is about destructive churches, specifically about the abuses that have been shown by RB Thieme, and his ministries.

You sir, are trying to recruit for whatever your trying to sell, aryian brotherhood or whatever (whitepower,whitebread,whatever :roll: ). Either leave or tell everyone how berachah church has effected you or someone you love.

Expositor, I would suggest you take your jacks and go somewhere else.

There is no more room here for your racism, maybe you and Quanell X go someplace and compare notes over a cup of hate.