zams:

zam

Quote

No, he is saying that those who deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ alone; those that say you must add consecration to faith, are cultish. The context of nearly every quote from DTS or Chafer you are posting is that those who add works to Christ's complete work on the cross are satanic or cultish.

No. You are wrong about this again. Adding consecration to faith is one more specific apsect to one of the cults described. Both cults described are defined as cults because they ignore the blood redemption of Christ. They both have that cult definition in [u:3f303bcba9]common[/u:3f303bcba9]. Chafer goes on to be more specific on how they [u:3f303bcba9]differ[/u:3f303bcba9].

I don't what's wrong with you. So I'll try to make it as easy as I can make it.

Here's the paragraph. Don't read the whole thing, I don't want you to get lost. I'll lead the way.

Quote

These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. [u:3f303bcba9]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[/u:3f303bcba9].

Just start with the 1st few words "These cults cover a variety of ideas"

Ok?

Quote

[u:3f303bcba9]These cults cover a variety of ideas[/u:3f303bcba9] all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism.

Ok? You with me so far?

Then it says

Quote

The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former

They both have this christian cult definition in common.

Ok?

The [u:3f303bcba9]latter[/u:3f303bcba9] in the context of this paragraph would be Buchmanism.

Ok?

The [u:3f303bcba9]former[/u:3f303bcba9] in the context of this paragraph would be Christian Science.

Ok?

[u:3f303bcba9][b:3f303bcba9]Both[/b:3f303bcba9] of those ignore the blood redemption of Christ[/u:3f303bcba9], which Chafer considered cults.

Ok?

[b:3f303bcba9][u:3f303bcba9]In addition[/u:3f303bcba9][/b:3f303bcba9] Chafer describes other [u:3f303bcba9]differing[/u:3f303bcba9] specific aspects of these 2 cults.

The [u:3f303bcba9]former[/u:3f303bcba9], [b:3f303bcba9]Christian Science[/b:3f303bcba9], [u:3f303bcba9]substitutes "bodily health for the salvation of the soul[/u:3f303bcba9]".

The [u:3f303bcba9]latter[/u:3f303bcba9], [b:3f303bcba9]Buchmanism[/b:3f303bcba9], [u:3f303bcba9]substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit[/u:3f303bcba9]. But [b:3f303bcba9][u:3f303bcba9]both[/u:3f303bcba9][/b:3f303bcba9] deny the blood redemption of Christ.

Ok. Did you get that? Because if you didn't, let me know where you got lost.





Truthtesty

zam

Quote

Yes, Chafer and the DTS statement espouse the literalness of the blood of Christ, but that is not the context as per pertaining to cultishness in the ones that are dealing with the cult subject. They are trying to communicate that Christ's saving work on the cross was enough, not go off on a dissertation about those who deny the literalness of Christ's blood being a cult.

Wrong again. Chafer and the DTS statement speak of the [u:9277e70d2a]efficacy of the literal shed blood of Christ[/u:9277e70d2a].

The efficacy of the literal shed blood of Christ has everything to do with Chafer's cult description on [u:9277e70d2a]blood redemption[/u:9277e70d2a]. Get it? You see they both have "blood" in common. Take literal efficacious shed [u:9277e70d2a]blood[/u:9277e70d2a] of Christ and [u:9277e70d2a]blood[/u:9277e70d2a] redemption. Gee do you think Chafer might think they have something that relates to one another? Hmm could it be the efficacious literal shed [u:9277e70d2a]blood[/u:9277e70d2a] of Christ?

According to Chafer, the efficacy of the literal shed blood of Christ has everything to do with Christ's saving work on the cross.

Dr. Chafer speaks of cults that ignore the blood redemption, which you either don't understand or are choosing to bypass.





Truthtesty

zam

Quote

I would think any person with a rational thinking mind can clearly see this, however there appears to be some mental block with you where either you have some perceptive problem, or you are so hellbent on revenge you just aren't getting it. Yes, keep on endlessly quoting Wall/Chafer/DTS. But unless you see what the context and points trying to be made are, you are wasting your time.

Speaking with you appears to be a waste of time. Your posts indicate nothing of sincere desire to heal and communicate in a rational manner. All I see is revenge and hate. You remind me of the jilted boyfriend who keeps showing up at your ex-girlfriend's workplace 30 years after you broke up. As another poster indictated, isn't it time to move on?

Sorry pal (or gal). I know that's the result you want and that's what you want everyone to see, but it's not happening that way. It's you that doesn't understand the context. Everyone with a rational brian can see that.

Before you go off and blame me for just a revenge trip, why don't you put the blame where it belongs - on Thieme?

It was Thieme who taught heretically different than Chafer. And what was Thieme's response when people asked why Thieme had "problems" with Dallas Theological Seminary? It is a lie that has been repeated and believed(as god's truth) for some 30 years at Berachah Inc. and never cleared up until now on this forum.


genez Posted: 03-28-2007 09:25 PM

Quote

The problem with Thieme and DTS was not that Thieme broke away from DTS. [u:91fd85321f]He never broke away from what Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted the school to produce. Thieme broke away from what the school had become.[/u:91fd85321f] There is a difference.

Thieme did break away from Chafer taught and and the whole world can clearly see that now. We can clearly see genez is wrong and believed Thieme's lie, like most Thiemites.

So instead of denying the truth because you don't like the truth and smearing me as some "jilted boyfriend" who's vengeful or hateful, why don't you try being honest with yourself and blame Thieme for the colossal lie that he perpetrated and his own errored heretical teachings?



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

In the DTS doctrinal Statement and in Chafer's [Vol. 2, Page 105] (and more places) Chafer (summarizing) speaks of a counterfeit as the most natural way for satan to resist the purpose of God. This is so satan can try to live out his desire to be "like the most high".

If you imagine a real dollar bill. Then if you imagine someone xeroxing that dollar bill on both sides with the latest modern color printers. Theen it's cut out. Then you have a counterfeit dollar bill. It looks exactly like a real dollar bill, but it is not.

And so satan's counterfeit doctrines look very real, but they are not.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:



DTS doctrinal statement

Quote

We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “[u:dfd94561d9]I will be like the most High[/u:dfd94561d9],” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even [u:dfd94561d9]counterfeiting the works of God [/u:dfd94561d9]by fostering religious movements and[u:dfd94561d9] systems of doctrine[/u:dfd94561d9], which [u:dfd94561d9]systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ [/u:dfd94561d9]and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).

These particular words are the same as in the original 1924 "Evangelical Theological College" doctrinal statement, prior to be renamed Dallas Theological seminary.

[www.dts.edu]




Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Thieme quote:

Quote

"...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"

DTS doctrinal statement

Quote

...systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are [b:c2a9447182][u:c2a9447182]characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ [/u:c2a9447182][/b:c2a9447182]

Truthtesty

To the forum:

Anyone who even attempts to correspond in any way, shape or form with Truthtesty is wasting his or her time.

Truthtesty is not a Christian, and even ridicules anyone who is a Christian.

Therefore, it is a complete waste of time to debate whether Thieme is a cult leader, cultish, cultlike, etc. with him. He is hell bent, and obsessed with Thieme, or anyone who has anything to do with Thieme.

I find it interesting that someone who is NOT a Christian would be trying to save a believer from participating in any capacity with Thieme, or Berachah. What could he be so worried about? That someone may actually learn about God there? That someone may become saved there? What could his motive be other than pure revenge for his brother who died at an early age because the adult in the house was listening to a Thieme tape instead of looking after the child?

Truthtesty you need to find a pastor, an evangelist, and/or a church. You need Jesus more than any “Thiemite cultist” out there. You need to let go and move on, and the only way you will ever be able to do that is through Jesus.

You can call Thieme all the names you want, you can attack everyone who has ever listened to Thieme, or still does, but you need to focus on yourself. Start reading the Chafer books you are always quoting, or the Scofield, or Dr. Wall, or whatever other books you keep quoting. Order some books from the Dallas Theological Seminary, they have an incredible library, and bookstore on their website.

Truthtesty, you need to accept Jesus as your savior, believe and confess in your heart that He is the son of God, and then, and only then will anyone on this forum care to listen to what you have to say.

To anyone else who reads this other than Truthtesty, please pray for Truthtesty. Pray that the resentment, and bitterness in his soul can be healed through Jesus.

Thanks
Synergycon

Pit viper:

What if you were raped pit viper? And you were angry. And you were in court with person who did it. And the lawyer asked you to point out who did it. And you pointed to the crimnal who did it. Should the jury dismiss what your saying, because you are angry?

No. they shouldn't. But that is exactly what you are try to tell the jury to do here.

If you can't handle the truth that is being posted on this R. B. Thieme cult forum then leave. You are not going to stop the discussion about the truth of Thieme's lies. This forum will be on the internet until then end of the earth, so get used to it.

If you'd like to discuss Chafer, Scofied, Thieme or Wall with me, then address the specific topic.



Truthtesty

pit viper:


Don't bring the tragedy that happened to my family up, because you cannot defend Thieme's lies and falsehoods. That is a cold mean-spirited attack - your attempt at "christian love". Your attempting to try to stop me from telling the truth by gouging at and old wound. It's only going to result in you being kicked off of this site.

You don't know me. You have not carefully assesed from what I have said(on this site), who I am. You are incorrect in what you are saying about me.

By the way since you want to fight "dirty", like most Thiemites do because they run out of the truth to defend themselves with, order the tape "30 Years a Slave to the Bob Thieme System" Interview by DAW with Vickie from Georgia" from the Bible for Today site. [www.biblefortoday.org]

In it, you will hear Dr. Waite saying he had talked to some deacons who had left Berachah Inc. that spoke of some "juicy details" on Thieme's pre-class activities and extra-curriculer activites.


Pit viper's Macarthur qoute

Quote

How can a physical substance (blood) be applied to a spiritual soul?

Truthtesty: Because God said it. Because it is not corrupt human blood. Becuase it is God's blood. How can anything be applied to a spiritual soul? [b:c30fbb1813][u:c30fbb1813]Only[/u:c30fbb1813][/b:c30fbb1813] God knows. Just because you can't figure it out, doesn't mean God can't. You and Macarthur don't know that there isn't an actual interactive spiritual timeless element in the blood of God. Did not Adam's physical blood relation to God change after the garden? What is it that any physical element in the universe relates to any spiritual element? How is it that you think God isn't spiritually relating to your blood right now? Because what? Because of "ape science"? Because of your putridly ignorant science in the eyes of God? Hah



What you are doing is satanicly attacking and "taking away" from the gospel without any LITERAL scriptural verse (in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or English) [u:c30fbb1813]that actually specifically states[/u:c30fbb1813]that the literal blood was not necessary. I'll trust God. not Thieme's ignorant judgement. Example of Thieme's ignorant judgement:
Thieme

Quote

"when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself".

Thieme's attacks on the gospel: "when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself" and "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.

taken together(because the were spoken at the same timeframe together) is an obvious attempt to pervert the gospel of Christ to that which satan worships, satan's own spiritual death. Thieme attacks as satan does - the efficacious physical death of Christ and the literal shed efficacious blood of Christ, and worships only spiritual death, to produce the perverted "counterfeit" gospel of satan's desire.

If you talk to Dr. Wall today, he will tell you the blood of Christ is more than just the literal blood - but not a denial of the efficacy of the literal blood, as Thieme denies the efficacy of the literal blood.

Thieme

Quote

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

DTS doctrinal statement:

Quote

We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare [u:c30fbb1813]appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God[/u:c30fbb1813] by fostering religious movements and [u:c30fbb1813]systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ[/u:c30fbb1813] and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).

Dr. Chafer [Vol. 2, Page 105] (and more places) Chafer (summarizing) speaks of a counterfeit as the most natural way for satan to resist the purpose of God. This is so satan can try to live out his desire to be "like the most high".

You can take any word in the bible and play a satanic word game with it, to detract from it's meaning. Why choose the "blood of Christ" to play a satanic word game with? Only because of a satanic motive.

Note the Holy Spirit symbolically chose the word blood in blood of Christ. If the Holy Spirit had meant "spiritual death only", then I am sure the Holy Spirit would have chose those words instead, but the Holy Spirit didn't choose the words "spiritual death only of Christ", now did he?

Also it was [u:c30fbb1813]literal blood[/u:c30fbb1813] that was offered upon the altar.

As I said before "Who are you a mere creature to say it is not necessary what God has said was necessary? Who is man to judge and deny the literal efficacious shed blood? Do you question that Jesus walked on water? Do you question all the other miracles? Jesus had power over death. Is this what a mere mortal does? Did Jesus exist as a mere mortal? Did Jesus have a mere mortals blood? We understand "platelets and plasma and red and white blood cells" now. We just recently discovered DNA. We have no theanthropic body to study. God's understanding the differences of our our blood and the theanthropic blood of Christ is infinite. When God said it was necessary, how is it that you can deny the precious shed blood of the Lamb, when only satan is interested in attacking and denying the blood of the Lamb? When satan was defeated by that blood? Only satan's allies are interested in attacking and taking away from the blood of Christ.

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 [u:c30fbb1813]blood of the Lamb[/u:c30fbb1813]. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is [u:c30fbb1813]termed a figure of speech[/u:c30fbb1813], [b:c30fbb1813]but it is [u:c30fbb1813]not meaningless[/u:c30fbb1813] on that account[/b:c30fbb1813]; [u:c30fbb1813]and so there is limitless reality in it.[/u:c30fbb1813] [b:c30fbb1813]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:c30fbb1813]Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished [i:c30fbb1813]directly by that blood[/i:c30fbb1813][/u:c30fbb1813][/b:c30fbb1813]

Truthtesty

Dear Truthtesty:

Your analogy of the hypothetical rape trial is actually the only post of yours that has ever revealed who you really are. I don’t think you know how profound your post was.

Basically you are saying that you are as mad as a rape victim that would have to point out his or her aggressor in a courtroom.

So, you are still mad at Thieme. Therefore how can you say that you are objective? Anyone who is mad can only be subjective. You are 100% biased in your debate

Moreover, the only thing that you cling to in your debates with other forum members is the “blood” topic. There is nothing else that you can come up with other than whether or not the “blood” is actual, or a metaphor.

Somehow you base your entire argument on whether Thieme is a cult leader, cultish, cult-like, etc on one topic.

Then, no matter who, or what anyone else has to say, you do nothing buy paste the same quotes from Thieme, Wall, and Chafer over and over again.

If you have read any of my posts, you should notice that I do not defend Thieme, and even point out personal problems of mine due to Thieme. However, I have the opinion, and still have the opinion that Thieme and his teachings are questionable, controversial, and maybe even misguided. BUT, I do not believe that he, or Berachah is a cult. I have even described Thieme & Berachah as cult-like and cultish, but based on my views, and others such as CARM.org, we feel that salvation is preached, and therefore it is NOT a cult.

How can anyone take you serious when you are so biased, and subjective? There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that reads your posts that you are vengeful, angry, bitter, and you have a big ax to grind.

Your only goal is to destroy Thieme, nothing else. You are not even a Christian, but you go out of your way to read Christian books from Chafer and others just to destroy Thieme.

Your arguments are weak, and lack any substance.

If I get kicked off this site, I can tell you ahead of time that I couldn’t care less. There is hardly anyone ever on here, and when they do come on here to offer valid points, you go out of your way to call them names, or wear them out by pasting the same quotes over and over again.

Your want facts, here are facts:
1. Your brother died while an adult was listening to a Thieme tape instead of caring for your brother.
2. You are not a Christian
3. You are filled with hate for Thieme
4. You are unable to address any posts objectively or without bias
5. You resort to name calling (i.e. pit vipor) other members who do not agree with you
6. You cling to one, and only one issue (the blood) in your quest to take down Thieme
7. You never answer anyone’s direct questions

Warm Regards
SynergyCon