Wow, there has been a lot of activity.

Voltaic & SynergyCon,
You guys definitely seem to be unable to distinguish between shades of description. Is the Thiemite system a cult? No, but it is awfully close. There is so much available information that documents the theological error and cultish elements of the system that one doesn’t have to look too far to see that. Thank God for the internet. Also, you guys seem to flip flop too much between feigning ignorance of certain aspects of the Thiemite system and then being intimately knowledgeable of those same aspects.

Should these things be discussed and evaluated and people warned of the cultish elements. Of course.
- We are told to examine all things and hold fast to what is true. 1 Thess. 5:21
- What does it mean to examine if not to judge between right and wrong? Peter judged Ananias and Saphira as liars (Acts 5:3-4), Paul judged the Galatians as fools (Gal. 3:1).
- The reason something can be judged as true or false is because the Bible clearly lays out the moral and doctrinal standards by which the truth may be discerned.
- We are commanded in Scripture to be able to give answers to everyone (1 Pet. 3:15) for the faith that was delivered by the apostles (Jude 4) Yet, Thieme and evidently Thiemite churches would seek to deny the believer this means of discernment, HELLO…cultish.

For anyone who’s interested, here is about as good an article on this subject as I’ve seen:
[www.carm.org]

Again, here is a good checklist which can be used to identify groups that are cults and/or cultish:
[www.carm.org]

The Thiemite system registers a yes answer for so many of those questions that it is startling. For anyone who is interested and is reading, or will read these forums, you may obtain Thiemite tapes free of charge from [www.rbthieme.org] Listen to any series and then evaluate it compared to Scripture and you’ll see the problems inherent with the system as well as the stuff that is actually good (not much). Then, evaluate the system based on that checklist linked to above and I’m certain you’ll see why it is considered cultish by a lot of people except those who are still in the system or are for whatever reason sympathetic to the bizarre Thiemite system. Again, people don’t become Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Russelites, Unitarians or Thiemites by reading the Bible. They become these things by devoting themselves solely or mostly to the teachings of those groups.

SynergyCon, your likening the Thiemite churches to the Roman Catholic church and the Papacy is spot on. They each have their very own Pope and demand that you believe everything they teach regardless of what is in the Bible. You know, the Roman Catholic Church still teaches some truth too (Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ, etc). I don’t think any Bible believing Protestant Christian would ever recommend that someone become a member of the Roman Catholic Church though.

Also, to the Christians on the board, remember a lot of these folks are not Christian. I believe Truthtesty is not Christian, right Testy? So, fellow professing Christians, you are not going to get anywhere with arguing Scripture or fine distinctions on this subject with non-Christians. Scripture doesn’t hold the same authority for the unbeliever that it SHOULD for Christians. Spiritually discerned comes to mind. So, hopefully you can appreciate why the cult/cultish distinction is neither important for them nor even a possibility.

Cheers all and hope you have a great weekend regardless of your position; cult, cultish or not.

Thiemite:

Thanks for shedding some real light re:Truthtesty. I was convinced that there was something about him that just didn’t make sense. Now everything he has said makes sense. His truth that he claims to be seeking is not truth, it is a quest to condemn due to bitterness and resentment.

Truthtesty, unless Thiemite is wrong about you, I will not respond to any further posts of yours.

Thiemite, I agree with you. Cult-like, or cultish, but not cult.

You seem to forget that I got out of the Theime system. However everything that I learned in the Theime system has helped me greatly in my spiritual growth. Sort of like some kind of weird paradox.

I feel for the believers who are at the present caught up in the Theime system. Again I attribute this to idolatry, and other reasons, but not being a cultist. Hopefully with tools such as the internet, and this forum, some will get a dose of discernment, and move on themselves.

You seem to be a fan of CARM.org, and as I pointed out in a previous post, CARM’s stance on whether a church is a cult or not is based on simple salvation, and in Thieme’s case, and Berachah’s and other Thieme clone churches they are not cults even though they score quite a good amount of yes’s on CARM’s cult checklist.

Just a share, when I think about what woke me up it was probably the “Tapes in lieu of a church statements.” The fact that a pastor would suggest that if you moved to a different city it would be better to listen to tapes instead of finding a local church to join.

My guess is that the “tapes” started out for military personnel that were away could hear Thieme’s sermons. However somewhere along the way the “tapes” were replacing attending a local church. Not what I believe Paul had in mind in his letters, or more importantly what Christ’s church is supposed to be.

Maybe the corruption came from them being free. Funny but the current church I attend today records their sermons also, but the CD’s cost $1.50. Maybe in some way the charging of the recorded message keeps satan from distorting what was a concept intended to be something good (free tapes) and turning it to evil (no attending local church.) You have no idea how many times I have heard that because they are free it proves they are good. Even on this forum Thieme backers always want to point out that because they are free it proves it is Godly. Remember satan is a master at deceit.


One last thing, I have been doing a lot of reading on narcissism lately. I can’t help but wonder if Thieme suffered from narcissism in some form.
Thanks

To Thiemite and Synergycon:

Let's try again. Try to stick to the facts.

Truthtesty:
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:

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 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. 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:

Quote

"[u:4db300269a][b:4db300269a]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.[/b:4db300269a][/u:4db300269a]

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:

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. 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 shed blood of Christ?

According to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Thieme's preaching on the blood of Christ defines Thieme as a cult. The only way to say that Thieme is not a cult, is to deny the efficacy of the literal Blood of Christ.

Since your being so openly judgemental about beliefs, will you state your own position on the "efficacy of the literal Blood of Christ"?




Truthtesty

Synergycon,

Synergycon

Quote

His truth that he claims to be seeking is not truth, it is a quest to condemn due to bitterness and resentment.

Truthtesty:
That is a lie.




Truthtesty

Synergycon:


Synergycon

Quote

[b:0cc4e0f226]I was convinced[/b:0cc4e0f226] that there was something about him that just didn’t make sense.

Truthtesty: What is it this "I was convinced"?

What is it this "something about him that just doesn't make sense" you are referring to?

That is what you call "smearing". You offer no facts. Your trying to smear "something" negative on me, then you run away.

You say Thieme is "cult-like, or cultish, but not cult", would you explain to us in your own words what you think the difference is between these descriptions?

A word of advice, check what you call your spiritual growth with Thieme, for demonic influence.



Truthtesty

Synergycon:

Personally I think you are pretender from the galiban days, who's found a new name Synergycon, and relogged on. I think you premeditatedly and pretentiously came in here to condemn me due to your resentment towards me, with your con of synergy, thus your name. But I say to you and to everyone. Don't trust me. Do you own work. Quit being lazy and relying on others to do it for you. Prove or disprove for yourself.

Years ago, after I had talked to Dr. Wall, someone mentioned they heard Dr. Wall say "Maybe I should start calling Thieme a cult".

If you call Dallas Theological Seminary today and talk to the faculty, they will tell you Thieme is wrong on blood atonement.

Thieme undoubtedly meets the majority of the criteria for an unregenerate cult. The question seems to be is Thieme a cult in the regenerate sense. Thus I showed the [u:a62f844640]new evidence [/u:a62f844640]from Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (which was not easy to find in Chafer's 8 volumes as voltaic as stated.
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?

As matter of fact it might be quite difficult for anyone(Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Wall etc..) to have missed Chafer's definition of an unregenerate cult, in the massive 8 volumes of Systematic Theology.)

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer is the grand daddy. Chafer founded Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Wall, Dr. Waite and pastor Thieme, all earned thier associated degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary. And what did Chafer say was the definition of a christian cult?

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110

Quote

As has been observed, [b:a62f844640]cults[/b:a62f844640] are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These [b:a62f844640]cults[/b:a62f844640] 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. [b:a62f844640]Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all [u:a62f844640]there is but one acid test[/u:a62f844640], namely, [u:a62f844640]What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and [i:a62f844640]shed blood of Christ?[/i:a62f844640] [/u:a62f844640] [/b:a62f844640]

Thieme

Quote

[b:a62f844640]1 John 1:7[/b:a62f844640] "And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL"

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199

Quote

[b:a62f844640]1 John 1:7[/b:a62f844640] "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 [u:a62f844640]blood of the Lamb[/u:a62f844640]. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. [u:a62f844640]It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it.[/u:a62f844640] 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:a62f844640][i:a62f844640]Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly [u:a62f844640]by that blood[/i:a62f844640] [/u:a62f844640][/b:a62f844640]

Thieme meets the definition of a christian cult according to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. Ultimately everyone must decide for themselves. Who will you side with? The literal shed Blood of Christ or Thieme's faulty overblown ego and errored studies? I'll side with the literal shed Blood of Christ, but that's me.


For those who suggest that Thieme is a "quasi-cult", like Thiemite and Synergy, I suggest you go to a Jehovah's witness gathering and try to determine for yourself, from the people's behaviour and what the cult leader actually says, whether or not Jehovah's Witness is a cult. No one there will tell you it is a cult. Oh you might find a few who say "Well it's kinda like a cult, but it's not a real cult"

"No one in a cult believes they are in a cult" Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan.

Don't think that the cultic hard core dedication to a cult leader exists only with Berachah. The cult followers of Heavens Gate, I'm sure, had warm fuzzy feelings for thier cult leader too and followed him to thier deaths. [en.wikipedia.org])

Keep in mind, there are all different types of cults: religious, psycology, martial arts, financial etc...

So, SynergyCon the con artist, unless you have facts to disprove my facts, don't come in here with your "smearings" and your unsubstantiated false claims against me. Thieme is a cult in the regenerate and unregenerate sense. If you disagree with that, then bring facts to back yourself up with.




Truthtesty

Voltaic,

Here are the total search mentionings of the word "cult", in Chafer's Sytematic Theology: [Vol. 2, Page 111], [Vol. 1, Page 23], [Vol. 1, Page 13], [Vol. 5, Page 172], [Vol. 1, Page viii], [Vol. 3, Page 313], [Vol. 6, Page 4], [Vol. 4, Page 76], [Vol. 7, Page 140], [Vol. 7, Page 239].


Truthtesty

Thiemite:

Thank you for your check list on cults. I noticed on #5--Cult groups vary greatly-- #1, From the ascetic to the promiscuous, you answered, "yes, promiscuous". Can you explain why you answered in this way?

To the Forum and SynergyCon:

I respect these 3 men Dr. Wall, Reverend Walters and Dr. Waite. I have learned much from all of them. I suggest you get both documents, both Dr. Wall's and Walters (and Dr. Waite). Compare these 2 documents carefully. What you will notice is Walters (and Dr. Waite) address Thieme's statement

Quote

[u:8a28b15b57]THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL[/u:8a28b15b57]

Dr. Wall tries to defend Thieme's position as attacking Catholicism to a point, but [u:8a28b15b57]Dr. Wall never addresses that heretical statement directly[/u:8a28b15b57]. Look for yourself. Try to tell me again that I am not here for truth. Try it.

Academically(poor academics actually, because you will see Thieme is also wrong on spiritual death only) attacking Catholicism or not, [u:8a28b15b57]denial of the efficacy of the literal blood of Christ - is denial of the efficacy of literal blood of Christ[/u:8a28b15b57]. I never heard of Thieme recanting his statement, even after being warned.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199

Quote

1 John 1:7 "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. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. 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. [u:8a28b15b57]Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood[/u:8a28b15b57]

So if your going to condemn Catholics on the efficacy of the literal shed blood of Christ issue, then you have to condemn Protestant Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer too. If you're going to do so then you need to have scripture to back you up, not just a loud mouth pastor who "lord's over" God's property, and "looks them dead in the eye" and brow beats everyone into submission, with the armed Houston police department to back him up. (like that's academic - what a sad joke), doesn't allow questions, etc...

I was raised Catholic before we went to Berachah. I have faith in the literal blood of Christ(and all aspects of Jesus' death). I didn't worship some pagan golden calf or something wierd, when I was Catholic. Thieme has no concept of what it is to be Catholic. I say that Catholics are just as saved under faith in the works of Jesus and His blood as in the born-again gospel(Ultimately we are all ignorant of the infinteness of God). Instead of using the literal shed blood of Christ issue to draw all christians together by spreading more Truth, Thieme uses it to "war against", fight, condemn, and divide. Note also Thieme wasn't just attacking Catholics, Thieme was attacking Protestants too, including Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. Thieme never stated he was specifically attacking Chafer. It is likely that is because Thieme was building part of his shady reputation based on Chafer's reputation. It is possible (although unlikely) that Thieme was completely ignorant of Chafer's position on the efficacy of the literal blood of Christ.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Voltaic quote of Dr. Wall

Quote

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)

Here's the full quote of Dr. Wall(both the positive and the negative):

Quote

Conclusion [b:a8c8928b43]Thieme's teaching that the spiritual death of Christ alone was sufficient to accomplish expiation and his interpretation of the term, blood of Christ is untenable[/b:a8c8928b43]. On the other hand, he is correct in rejecting a magical or mystical view of blood. 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.

Dr. Wall dissertation

Quote

[b:a8c8928b43]Two measuring rods will be employed in this dissertation.[/b:a8c8928b43] [u:a8c8928b43]First[/u:a8c8928b43] are the fundamentals to which adherence was required by The World's Christian Fundamentals Association, which was begun in 1919 as a reaction to the growing modernism in the early twentieth century:13
(1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures,
(2) the Trinity,
(3) the deity and virgin birth of Christ,
(4) the creation and fall of man,
(5) a substitutionary atonement,
(6) the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ,
(7) the regeneration of believers,
(8 ) the personal and imminent return of Christ,
(9) the resurrection and final assignment of all men to eternal
blessedness or eternal woe.
[b:a8c8928b43][u:a8c8928b43]Second[/u:a8c8928b43], the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a concise statement of Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology, will be used as a broader basis for determining orthodoxy.[/b:a8c8928b43]

Clearly the second measuring rod Dr. Wall is using is not accurate, as defined as: the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, [b:a8c8928b43]which is a [u:a8c8928b43]concise[/u:a8c8928b43] statement of [u:a8c8928b43]Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology[/u:a8c8928b43][/b:a8c8928b43]

Dr. Wall either did not read or chose not use [b:a8c8928b43][u:a8c8928b43]Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's own theologically[/u:a8c8928b43][/b:a8c8928b43] [u:a8c8928b43][b:a8c8928b43]concise[/b:a8c8928b43][/u:a8c8928b43] and precise definition of a cult.

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110 Quote:

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. 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,[b:a8c8928b43] What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and [u:a8c8928b43]shed blood of Christ? [/u:a8c8928b43][/b:a8c8928b43]

Thieme Quote:

Quote

[u:a8c8928b43]1 John 1:7[/u:a8c8928b43] "[b:a8c8928b43]And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL[/b:a8c8928b43]"

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199

Quote

[u:a8c8928b43]1 John 1:7 [/u:a8c8928b43]"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. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. 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:a8c8928b43]Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood [/b:a8c8928b43]

It only took 8 years, but it is worth noting Thieme did recant his statement(in private interview with Dr. Wall 1977) of "when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself".

Per Dr. Wall's dissertation:

Quote

In his early teaching on the blood of Christ, Thieme also remarked that
"when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself.”45 Such a statement aroused some of his critics to challenge his entire teaching on the physical and spiritual death of Christ.46 [b:a8c8928b43][u:a8c8928b43]Apparently Thieme's statement was an unguarded one; for in a personal interview he quickly responded that he did not believe that Jesus died for himself, and he also labeled such a concept as heresy[/u:a8c8928b43][/b:a8c8928b43].47

45 Robert B. Thieme, Jr., I John 1: 7b-8 Doc. of the Blood, 23 June 1969.
46 Walter, False Teaching, p. 25.
47 Thieme interview, 26 September 1977.

It only took 8 years to admit.



Truthtesty