zams

Quote

kcjones,

This is not true, and you are distorting Thieme's position, which has always been his position. Which is that salvation was accomplished by Christ's atoning death on the cross, which was efficacious for any member of the human race who believes, regardless of any other factor.

Truthtesty:
Thieme did not teach that Christ's atoning death included the literal shed blood of Jesus. Chafer considered that a cult. Chafer also considered it satanic.



Truthtesty

SynergyCon, Voltaic, and zams:


I need to see some facts from you, otherwise you are here cheerleading for Thieme. You can do that on pro-Thieme sites, but here that is considered harassment.



Truthtesty

Truthtesty wrote:


_____________________________________________________________
(Notice Voltaic makes [b:1fc02e4729]no mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings[/b:1fc02e4729] that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions.)

Voltaic wrote:

Quote

Now you are plainly lying about what I have or haven't said. I refer you to post #44879 in this thread where I did briefly discuss this and where you went off into left-field about wanting me to go to jail because I believe Christians should follow the law when the Anti-Christ is in charge or something outlandish. Maybe you don't agree with my answer or things could be misinterpreted, etc. That's fine and we can discuss it. But what I have or haven't said is very plainly documented here in this thread.

Truthtesty:
If I am lying, then where did you specifically state Thieme's teachings are evil?

Voltaic:

Quote

[b:1fc02e4729]It is true that I never said Thieme’s teachings are evil[/b:1fc02e4729]. However, in your quote above, you said I made "no mention" of how Thieme’s teachings caused people to bump into walls, etc. But I did make mention of this in my post #44879, and you even replied to it when you said you wanted to send me to jail or something, etc. So saying that I did not mention it at all when I did, is wrong.

Truthtesty wrote:
Also, you have broken your own "holier than thou art" rules, by specifically and [b:1fc02e4729]falsely accusing me of lying[/b:1fc02e4729], in public, and without me contacting you "privately".

Voltaic

Quote

I am not holier than thou, and I have no rules to that end. But, earlier you made a big deal that I was not mentioning specifics, and now you call me out for mentioning a specific. Which standard should I go by?

________________________________________________________

Truthtesty: If you actually had integrity, you'd know. Satan accurately quoted scripture, but his intents and his ends were false. And you are pretending to be holier than thou art.

Voltaic

Quote

However, in your quote above, [b:1fc02e4729]you said I made [u:1fc02e4729]"no mention" of how[/u:1fc02e4729] Thieme’s teachings caused people to bump into walls, etc[/b:1fc02e4729].

Truthtesty:
No that's not what I said. I said (look at it, it's right there) "Notice Voltaic makes [b:1fc02e4729][u:1fc02e4729]no mention of the evil[/b:1fc02e4729] of Thieme's teachings that cause[/u:1fc02e4729]: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions.

You subtracted and reworded "[u:1fc02e4729]no mention of the evil[/u:1fc02e4729]" to [u:1fc02e4729]"no mention" of how[/u:1fc02e4729]. You're the liar Voltaic. You'll change a simple sentence around to cya. It is true that you mentioned pastors should be taken to task, but I never mentioned pastors in general - you did. You continue to rationalize your errors into the "in general ozonosphere", to escape the specific truths. It's time for your hypocrasy to end, why don't you follow your own hypocritical advice to sistersoap?

sistersoap wrote:
You have some nerve coming in here rebuking people who have been severely traumatized by SERIOUS FALSE TEACHING for many years, and so delicately refusing to quote the things you say are unchristian of us to say about a fellow believer!

Voltaic:

Quote

I do not intend to rebuke anyone who has suffered harm, I only intended to urge everyone to make sure they are acting in accordance with our membership in the body of Christ, and to do so in their own self-examination. [b:1fc02e4729]There's a huge difference between a general "call to repentance" and pointing fingers at anyone specifically. [/b:1fc02e4729]

Truthtesty:
Which now you are pointing fingers specifically, and you not even correct in your finger-pointing liar accusations. Holier than thou art hypocrite. You can leave with your unexamined trembling tail between your legs now.





Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty

Quote
Voltaic
Thieme always taught that the eternal/judicial penalty for sin was paid for at the cross, but that personal sin in the life was a barrier to spiritual living.

Thieme never taught that sins were paid for by the literal shed blood of Christ, and that according to Chafer is a christian cult.

I couldn't find any uses of "cult" in [u:56abb252bf]Systematic Theology[/u:56abb252bf] but I have a print edition, not electronic, and it's hard to search easily. I just scanned the section on the literal Blood in volume VII and didn't see it either. Can you cite the volume and page of that?

Here's what Wall had to say on Thieme's teachings about the blood of Christ:
"After a careful examination of Thieme's teaching on the blood as it related to Christ's spiritual and physical deaths, one must conclude that he is definitely within the sphere of orthodox Christianity." (p 27)

"Although Thieme's position on the physical and spiritual deaths of Christ is not extreme enough to call it heresy, it has some major exegetical and logical shortcomings." (p 27)

"Nevertheless, it must be concluded that when measured by the standard of the nine fundamentals and the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary, his doctrine of the blood of Christ as well as his stand on other basic doctrines rests clearly within the sphere of orthodoxy." (p 30)

Quote
Truthtesty

Quote
Voltaic
The big differences between Thieme's teachings and others is two-fold: 1) Thieme gave it a new term, "rebound", which may be confusing (Wall covers this in his thesis) and 2) Thieme taught that only confession was needed to "be" spiritual whereas other theologians teach about a yielded walk in life, etc. The second of these is an important theological difference, [u:56abb252bf]but it doesn't make "Rebound" itself some evil teaching[/u:56abb252bf].

Wrong again (buzzer) If it causes schizophrenia - it's evil.

[...]

[b:56abb252bf]In some cases it can even result in a rationalization of the continuing existence of sin 16 and the repression of guilt, and this can produce emotional problems and even schizophrenia. The author has personally counseled people with such problems stemming from their abuse of Thieme's teaching on confession and fellowship[/b:56abb252bf]

Note that Dr. Wall says it is the believer's abuse of the doctrine which may lead to the various potential issues. This doesn't excuse the teaching, but it doesn't condemn it as evil either (and you will note that Wall doesn't call the teaching "evil"). As a Scriptural example, we take Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8: eating meat is not a sin, but if doing so would be mis-understood by a brother and cause him to stumble into guilt, then it is sin. But the actual eating is not evil in and of itself.

In the same way, for the handful of Christians who had trouble in their lives caused by any man's teachings, that teacher [i:56abb252bf]will[/i:56abb252bf] account to God for them; but for the many thousands who did not have these troubles, there is not accounting needed. How can one teaching be both evil and acceptable at the same time?

Quote
Truthtesty
You subtracted and reworded "[u:56abb252bf]no mention of the evil[/u:56abb252bf]" to [u:56abb252bf]"no mention" of how[/u:56abb252bf]. You're the liar Voltaic. You'll change a simple sentence around to cya. It is true that you mentioned pastors should be taken to task, but I never mentioned pastors in general - you did. You continue to rationalize your errors into the "in general ozonosphere", to escape the specific truths. It's time for your hypocrasy to end, why don't you follow your own hypocritical advice to sistersoap?

Your posts are extremely difficult to reply to because you break them into many parts and don't quote using the built-in forum tools that I am used to using; so that while typing my replies (which I spend hours on, offline, to hopefully make them easy to read and include dozens of scriptures) if I miss something it is because I am a failed human being.

In any case, I did [u:56abb252bf]make mention[/u:56abb252bf] of the specific "evil teachings" of Thieme as you call them. What I did not do, and will not do now, is agree that they are "evil". In post #44690, I said exactly this (direct quote):

Quote

I don't think someone bumping their head into a wall is enough cause to vilify a pastor.

As for people who end up with [b:56abb252bf]legitimate psychological problems and damage[/b:56abb252bf], I'd definitely agree that their situations should be studied by accredited, legitimate people and, [b:56abb252bf]if it can be shown that a pastor is personally responsible, he should be taken to task yes[/b:56abb252bf]. But I would not agree that an internet-based smear campaign is the right way to go about it. I don't agree that going behind a person's back or over their head or whatever metaphor you want is ever advocated by the Bible.

I don't believe that every person who takes teachings into wrong conclusions or actions necessarily is the pastor's fault, either. Certainly in many cases it is, but not always. For example, Peter continually made errors in understanding teaching (see passages in Matthew 16-19 and 26), and even cut off some poor slave's ear, and he was a personal disciple of the living Christ!

Certainly if you have the majority of a congregation who, for instance, hear voices and bump into walls, then there is something genuinely endemic in the teaching. But if you have hundreds or thousands of people in a group and maybe 1% have issues, it's time to honestly examine the cause. Perhaps it is the teacher; or perhaps he's just a convenient scapegoat.

So yes, I did [u:56abb252bf]make mention[/u:56abb252bf] of Thieme's specific, "evil" teachings although you have repeatedly stated I didn't. But I refuse to call them evil, because I don't agree with that evaluation.

Quote
Truthtesty
You are joke. Enough of your pretentious intelligence.

Quote
Truthtesty
Which now you are pointing fingers specifically, and you not even correct in your finger-pointing liar accusations. Holier than thou art hypocrite. You can leave with your unexamined trembling tail between your legs now.

Here's a nice quote from Chafer from the section on Apostasy (VII): "Those in error are always subject to [b:56abb252bf]correction in love[/b:56abb252bf]". I bolded that last bit on my own.

Voltaic

Quote

In any case, I did make mention of the specific "evil teachings" of Thieme as you call them. What I did not do, and will not do now, is agree that they are "evil". In post #44690, I said exactly this (direct quote):

Quote:

Quote

I don't think someone bumping their head into a wall is enough cause to vilify a pastor.

You said pastor in general, not Thieme. [b:cc3f673f0e][u:cc3f673f0e]Where did you mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings [/u:cc3f673f0e][/b:cc3f673f0e]that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions? You mentioned pastor but not Thieme and you did not mention the evil teaching which caused it. You said pastor in general, not Thieme.

Voltaic

Quote

As for people who end up with legitimate psychological problems and damage, I'd definitely agree that their situations should be studied by accredited, legitimate people and, if it can be shown that a pastor is personally responsible, he should be taken to task yes.

You said "if it can be shown that a pastor is personally responsible, he should be taken to task", but [b:cc3f673f0e][u:cc3f673f0e]where did you mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings[/u:cc3f673f0e][/b:cc3f673f0e] that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions?


Voltaic

Quote

But I would not agree that an internet-based smear campaign is the right way to go about it. I don't agree that going behind a person's back or over their head or whatever metaphor you want is ever advocated by the Bible.

You can suggest that there is something evil with us running an internet smear campaign,(which we are not) but [b:cc3f673f0e][u:cc3f673f0e]where did you mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings [/u:cc3f673f0e][/b:cc3f673f0e]that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions? I also directly confronted Thieme, so did Dr. Wall.


Voltaic

Quote

I don't believe that every person who takes teachings into wrong conclusions or actions necessarily is the pastor's fault, either. Certainly in many cases it is, but not always. For example, Peter continually made errors in understanding teaching (see passages in Matthew 16-19 and 26), and even cut off some poor slave's ear, and he was a personal disciple of the living Christ!

OK so now you believe every person who teaches can be wrong, but not really wrong, but [b:cc3f673f0e][u:cc3f673f0e]where did you mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings [/u:cc3f673f0e][/b:cc3f673f0e]that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions?

Voltaic

Quote

Certainly if you have the majority of a congregation who, for instance, hear voices and bump into walls, then there is something genuinely endemic in the teaching. But if you have hundreds or thousands of people in a group and maybe 1% have issues, it's time to honestly examine the cause. Perhaps it is the teacher; or perhaps he's just a convenient scapegoat.

[u:cc3f673f0e][b:cc3f673f0e]Where did you mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings[/b:cc3f673f0e][/u:cc3f673f0e] that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions?

Voltaic

Quote

So yes, I did make mention of Thieme's specific, "evil" teachings although you have repeatedly stated I didn't.

WOW![u:cc3f673f0e][b:cc3f673f0e]Where?[/b:cc3f673f0e][/u:cc3f673f0e] [b:cc3f673f0e][u:cc3f673f0e]Where did you mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings[/u:cc3f673f0e][/b:cc3f673f0e] that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions?

Voltaic

Quote

But I refuse to call them evil, because I don't agree with that evaluation.

[b:cc3f673f0e]Well, if you don't agree that they [u:cc3f673f0e]are evil[/u:cc3f673f0e], then you didn't mention [u:cc3f673f0e]of the evil[/u:cc3f673f0e].[/b:cc3f673f0e] Now did you?

One problem you have, is telling the truth to yourself (and to the whole world).




Truthtesty

Truthtesty wrote:
You are joke. Enough of your pretentious intelligence.

Truthtesty wrote:
Which now you are pointing fingers specifically, and you not even correct in your finger-pointing liar accusations. Holier than thou art hypocrite. You can leave with your unexamined trembling tail between your legs now.

Voltaic

Quote

Here's a nice quote from Chafer from the section on Apostasy (VII): "Those in error are always subject to correction in love". I bolded that last bit on my own.

Truthtesty:
As I said before "elbow love". It's difficult to get Thiemites to face the hard reality, sometimes it gets rough.



Truthtesty

Voltaic

Quote

In the same way, for the handful of Christians who had trouble in their lives caused by any man's teachings, that teacher will account to God for them; but for the many thousands who did not have these troubles, there is not accounting needed. How can one teaching be both evil and acceptable at the same time?

Truthtesty:
Your forgetting to mention the high degree of fear/stress training Thiemites received to pretend everything is ok, when it is not ok. You say it's a handful, but you don't know that. No one really knows. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the internet forums many people of many abused groups would not have the chance to get together and discuss the abuse. Thieme nearly got away with it.



Truthtesty

Voltaic wrote:

Quote

Thieme always taught that the eternal/judicial penalty for sin was paid for at the cross, but that personal sin in the life was a barrier to spiritual living.

Truthtesty:
Thieme never taught that sins were paid for by the literal shed blood of Christ, and that according to Chafer is a christian cult.

Voltaic

Quote

I couldn't find any uses of "cult" in Systematic Theology but I have a print edition, not electronic, and it's hard to search easily. I just scanned the section on the literal Blood in volume VII and didn't see it either. Can you cite the volume and page of that?

Here's what Wall had to say on Thieme's teachings about the blood of Christ:
"After a careful examination of Thieme's teaching on the blood as it related to Christ's spiritual and physical deaths, one must conclude that he is definitely within the sphere of orthodox Christianity." (p 27)

"Although Thieme's position on the physical and spiritual deaths of Christ is not extreme enough to call it heresy, it has some major exegetical and logical shortcomings." (p 27)

"Nevertheless, it must be concluded that when measured by the standard of the nine fundamentals and the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary, his doctrine of the blood of Christ as well as his stand on other basic doctrines rests clearly within the sphere of orthodoxy." (p 30)

Truthtety:
Dr. Wall was Thieme's lifelong friend, I am sure he found it very difficult to condemn Thieme. Also, here's where Dr. Waite and Dr. Wall disagree.


Dr. Wall

Quote

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 [u:4108107b97]also his physical blood [/u:4108107b97]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. 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.

Thieme's landmark quote was

Quote

"The Blood from His veins [Christ's veins] was a little bleeding from his hands and a little bleeding from his feet, and it doesn't save you and never will.

That statement of Thieme's would identify Thieme as a cult, according to Chafer. Chafer believed in the literal pure shed blood of Christ. Chafer also recognized blood of christ as a metaphor with endless meaning.

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110

Quote

As has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. [b:4108107b97]No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely, What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and [i:4108107b97][u:4108107b97]shed blood of Christ[/u:4108107b97][/i:4108107b97]? [/b:4108107b97]

Leave it to a Thiemite to mention only the good things said about Thieme. People can clearly see from Voltaic's statements, that it is almost impossible to get thiemites to confess to anything negative or bad (needless to say the evil) of Thieme. As with most cults you will not get the full true picture, the good side and bad side of the story, by listening to a cult member.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

I am not interested in the "Christian code of silence". I am interested in the truth, the whole truth (good and bad), and nothing but the truth.



Truthtesty

Truthtesty:

Thanks for pointing out that Dr. Wall does use the word “cult” at least twice in his thesis. I stand corrected. Like I said it has been at least 5 years since I read it. What I should have said, and meant to say was nowhere in the book do I remember Dr. Wall actually calling it a cult.

Before I make a couple more points let me paste some quotes:

[i:10a3bc17d6]A balanced and fair evaluation of the extensive teachings of Robert Thieme has been overdue. The writer of this volume has achieved a balance between proper recognition of the good qualities of the teaching ministry of Colonel Robert B. Thieme and at the same time a candid evaluation and critique. The author has had a long and warm relationship to Colonel Thieme which has enabled him to show proper appreciation of those aspects of his ministry which are commendable. At the same time, he has not blindly ignored problems which many have noted in these same teachings. As one who has had a long personal relationship with Colonel Thieme, I have been distressed both by those who shower undiscerning praise upon his teachings as well as those who have been unfairly critical. While the comments of Dr. Wall and his analysis will probably not satisfy either the severe critics nor the avid followers of Colonel Thieme, this volume presents an evenhanded, fair analysis which will be welcomed by many Christians who have been searching for a thorough study and proper evaluation. It is hoped that this volume will put in proper perspective the questions which many people have raised, arising out of great admiration for Colonel Thieme or prompted by critical opposition. This volume is commended to the Christian reading public for its solid contribution.
John F. Walvoord[/i:10a3bc17d6][/color:10a3bc17d6]

For those who don’t know him, John F. Walvoord, a Theologian was president of the Dallas Seminary from 1952-1986.

What he is saying is pretty much what goes on in this forum. “undiscerning praise upon his teachings as well as those who have been unfairly critical.”

The other key point Walvoord makes is this: “balance between proper recognition of the good qualities of the teaching ministry of Colonel Robert B. Thieme, and at the same time a candid evaluation and critique.”

Truthtesty, even Dr. Wall said the following in his thesis:

The thesis of this dissertation is that R. B. Thieme, Jr., is a gifted brother in Christ who has had some significant exegetical and theological contributions to make to the body of Christ, but that certain of his current teachings and emphases, will not bear up under close exegetical scrutiny and, therefore, have resulted in faulty and erroneous doctrinal and practical conclusions, which, though still within the limits of historic Christian orthodoxy, tend to affect negatively the lives of his disciples and to hinder the maintenance of Christian unity. A brief summary of the concluding critiques of each chapter will demonstrate the basis for this thesis.[/color:10a3bc17d6]

Notice Dr. Wall himself calls Thieme a “brother in Christ”, and he states, “ has had some significant exegetical and theological contributions to make to the body of Christ.”

Truthtesty, you appear to me as someone who has an axe to grind. Someone seeking revenge, and to quote you “justice to be served.”

Here is another analysis from someone about Thieme that I agree with:

Over the years, Bob Thieme developed the following questionable and unscriptural theories:
· GAP--Grace Apparatus of Perception. This teaching asserts that the believer has a capacity, immediately on receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit, for discernment of Biblical truth. This idea contradicts both the TIME and SOVEREIGNTY elements of genuine spiritual growth. The concept led to a lot of contention in his followers, as respect for elder authority was undermined and thoroughly dispelled.
· RIGHT MAN, RIGHT WOMAN. Thieme taught that for every man there is an absolutely right woman, and that if you don't follow God's direction and marry the "right" woman, then you are in for a lot of misery. You can imagine what that does to a congregation. Sadly, divorce was not discouraged and families were split as spiritual bullies attempted to assert themselves in the lives of couples growing at different rates.
· From that concept, (taught, by the way, as a study on the Song of Solomon), came RIGHT CHURCH, RIGHT PASTOR. At this point the tape ministry was going strong. Bob taught that if you did not have a local pastor teaching the same principles as he, then he became your pastor and you went on worldwide program of "tape cells"—weekly gatherings for the purpose of listening to Bob’s recorded messages. When we left Berachah and Houston for New Orleans, we did participate in such a group there.
From that point there emerged another ‘divine inspiration’--an entire presentation for making spiritual growth analogous to functions of the human body. The lungs became the process of taking in "doctrine" and expiring theological error. This finally evolved into something today Thieme calls the Divine Dynasphere--the spiritual cosmic bubble in which the believer moves, i.e., the sphere of God's will for each individual.
It's a tragic story of a brilliant mind, missing the Cross to crucify the self-life, isolated on his own materials, recognizing no peer and feeding on his own misconceptions.

Truthtesty, the funny thing is that you and I probably have more that we agree with than disagree with re: Thime. It’s just that I don’t think it’s a cult. When you dig deep enough, the fatal flaw is the belief that the Pastor is one without peer in the local congregation. That pyramid of leadership is egregiously damaging to any assembly. It leaves the Body of Christ in that location subject (Berachah & Thieme clone churches) to the ego of the proclaimed leader and robs him of any ministry of the Spirit through the collective wisdom and maturity of those around him. I am reminded of Darby's paper on the very idea of "clergy", being the sin against the Holy Spirit in this age.
Most people that I have known that were raised Catholic, and became born again believers later in life, and then attended Teteletai Church (Thieme clone church) were able to immediately see the similarities to Thieme (in my case Knapp) and the Pope. It was the Papal authority stuff all over again for them. They didn’t want someone telling them not to read their Bibles, and having one human being having the final say in everything.
Like I have said, I never got a chance to see Thieme in person. In the70’s I was a teenager, and I can remember once every year Thieme would come to Pittsburgh to do his thing at the convention center. It was usually a three day event. I remember it being announced in Tetelestai church. You would have thought that it was Jesus himself coming to town. There was more excitement at Tetelestai than would be the local Catholic Church if the Pope were coming to town.
Thieme continued to come to Pittsburgh about once a year throughout the 80’s and into the 90’s, however I never went. Why? When I was about 12 I remember my mom (she went to all of them) telling me about how in the middle of his teaching, he stopped, yelled at two guys who I think were whispering, and then kicked them out. I was like “why would anyone want to go see that guy?”
Part of me wishes now that I would have went to at least one of his visits, but then again Truthtesty, if I did, I might today be living in Houston instead of Pittsburgh, have a Thieme shrine in my basement, pictures of him in my halls, and a shaved head.
May God bless all with discernment.
Thanks