ephesians,

Thieme did not teach the winner-loser doctrine anthropopathically or metaphorically; he taught all the points of this doctrine, which I enumerated in my previous post, as dogmatic, literal “Bible doctrine.” Yes, Thieme does teach that “every believer in Heaven will be eternally happy, have a resurrection body, live forever, and know ‘no sorrow, no tears, the old things have passed away.’” But he contradicts himself. Thieme is an Indian giver; what he gives you with one hand, he takes away with the other. It doesn’t do much good to say that all believers will be eternally happy, when you’ve already beaten them over the head with dogmatic, literal teachings like these:

• [b:9bde65a5a0]The “loser” is under a curse, outside God’s protection, in “[u:9bde65a5a0]reversionism[/u:9bde65a5a0]” and doomed to a “miserable death” under “maximum divine discipline.” [/b:9bde65a5a0]Keep in mind, Thieme’s definition of a “loser” was anyone outside Thieme-ism. [[i:9bde65a5a0]Note: [/i:9bde65a5a0]The term “backsliding” has been the [i:9bde65a5a0]Biblical [/i:9bde65a5a0]term in the English Bible for 500 years, and describes the condition of carnal, disobedient Christians perfectly well. There is absolutely no good reason for changing it now. Every English-speaking Christian around the world knows what backsliding means. Hardly any of them have even heard of “reversionsim.” So how is Thieme helping anyone by inventing new terms? He’s not. The only thing he is accomplishing by this is to convince the people even more that they need him to interpret the Bible for them. The result has been a plethora of useless technical terminology that only wastes the people’s time. The faithful Christians throughout history that I described in my previous post never wasted their time studying so-called “doctrinal” terms like: [i:9bde65a5a0]scar tissue of the soul: [/i:9bde65a5a0]What was wrong the Biblical vocabulary of “hardness of the heart”? The vocabulary that all Christians already know and understand? [i:9bde65a5a0]Positive volition toward Bible doctrine: [/i:9bde65a5a0]What was wrong with loving God’s Word or hungering for His truth? Why waste your time inventing new terms that nobody knows and waste even more time teaching people the definitions of your new terminology? What happened to the “simplicity that is in Christ”? [i:9bde65a5a0]Portfolio of invisible assets: [/i:9bde65a5a0]What was wrong with “all spiritual blessings” and other phrases that the [i:9bde65a5a0]Bible [/i:9bde65a5a0]uses? Is the vocabulary that God used in His own Word somehow defective? And we could go on and on. It should also be noted that Thieme teaches that “technicality” is a [i:9bde65a5a0]requirement [/i:9bde65a5a0]for knowing “Bible doctrine.” Exercising and enforcing the use of one’s own religious jargon is also a classic cult tactic.]
• [b:9bde65a5a0]The “loser” will carry the label of LOSER for all eternity, even in heaven. [/b:9bde65a5a0]Again, this is a dogmatic, literal teaching of Thieme’s. This is much more than the concept of degrees of reward in heaven. This is splitting the Body of Christ into two very distinct groups—one with the tag of “WINNER,” and the other with the tag of “LOSER.” You can not dismiss this as a metaphor or an “anthropopathism.” This is the literal fate of the loser, according to Thieme.
• [b:9bde65a5a0]The “loser” will forfeit his eternal inheritance, and that inheritance will always remain as an eternal reminder of what he could’ve had if he’d been a “winner.” [/b:9bde65a5a0]Again, these are dogmatic, literal statements made constantly by Thieme and many Thiemite pastors. Yet in your post, ephesians, you did not address Thieme’s rigid, [i:9bde65a5a0]literal [/i:9bde65a5a0]presentation of these specific points. You just carelessly dismiss the whole issue as an “anthropopathism.” It sure would’ve been nice of Thieme, after he beat us over the head with these teachings, to tell us he wasn’t really being literal. Unfortunately, in 53 years behind the pulpit, he never did.

You say that these things “are meant to motivate.” They sure are. Fear can be a great motivator. And Thieme “motivates” his followers with the fear of a miserable death under terrible divine discipline and the eternal embarrassment of the LOSER tag in heaven, with your forfeited inheritance always there, always reminding you that you’re a LOSER.

It is a glaring contradiction to say that a believer could be branded an eternal LOSER with his forfeited inheritance as a constant reminder, and then say he’ll be perfectly happy in heaven. This is not merely “putting into human terms things that we can't understand about the eternal state.” This is the official, literal dogma of the Thiemite camp, and it contradicts many scriptures. If you are going to be a good Thiemite and a “winner believer,” you must accept these doctrines [i:9bde65a5a0]literally[/i:9bde65a5a0], and live your life by them. You stated that “it’s important to emphasize, even if in dramatic terms, the necessity of earning these rewards.” Yes, it is important to teach God’s people the importance of serving Him faithfully and the heavenly reward that awaits them for their service on earth. But we are to do this in [i:9bde65a5a0]Biblical [/i:9bde65a5a0]terms, not our own manmade “dramatic” terms. Nowhere in the Bible do we ever find an “escrow” inheritance for “winners” only. Nowhere in the Bible do we ever see the Church split into two distinct groups of “winner” and “loser,” with the “winner” group receiving all kinds of special privileges that are denied to the “losers.” Thieme dogmatically and literally teaches that all these eternal blessings are reserved for the “winners” and withheld from the “losers”:

• [b:9bde65a5a0]The “parties” in the “Gazebo.” [/b:9bde65a5a0]Where is such a thing ever mentioned in Scripture? How arrogant for me to think that the Lord Jesus Christ will be inviting me to special “parties” and excluding my brethren! This sounds more like the popularity contest in high school than the Bible.
• [b:9bde65a5a0]His own eternal inheritance. [/b:9bde65a5a0]
• [b:9bde65a5a0]Eating of the Tree of Life in the eternal Paradise of God.[/b:9bde65a5a0]
• [b:9bde65a5a0]The special stone with a new name written on it.[/b:9bde65a5a0]
• [b:9bde65a5a0]Ruling with Christ over His kingdom.[/b:9bde65a5a0]
• [b:9bde65a5a0]The Morning Star.[/b:9bde65a5a0]
• [b:9bde65a5a0]His name in the Book of Life. [/b:9bde65a5a0]Here Thieme had to invent a whole new “book of life”—a “book of life of rewards,” which is an utterly preposterous and unscriptural notion. But these are the lengths to which Thieme would go to push his “winner and loser” doctrine—he created a “book of life” where the loser’s name is blotted out.
• [b:9bde65a5a0]His own pillar in the temple of God.[/b:9bde65a5a0]
• [b:9bde65a5a0]Having God’s name written upon him.[/b:9bde65a5a0]

You say that the “loser” will have “perhaps a moment of shame at the Judgment Seat.” First of all, I would ask you to clarify the word “perhaps.” Will the loser definitely experience this shame or not? Secondly, the idea of a believer suffering this kind of shame is completely unscriptural. We are promised that “whosever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed,” and that “He is not ashamed to call them brethren.” As I mentioned before, every scripture that describes our Lord’s return and His Judgment Seat describes only anticipation and rejoicing for [i:9bde65a5a0]all [/i:9bde65a5a0]God’s people. We are promised that we will be presented “[b:9bde65a5a0]faultless [/b:9bde65a5a0]before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.” We are presented [i:9bde65a5a0]faultless [/i:9bde65a5a0]before Him, in our resurrected glory, clothed with the perfect righteousness of Christ, our old body and old sinful nature having been left behind and forgotten. We stand before our Lord in perfect resurrection bodies like His, possessing His very righteousness. To say that we could possibly suffer shame at this time is to say that the perfectly righteous nature of God can experience shame.

As far as your statements that Thieme hasn’t damaged you… Your own individual experience with Thieme-ism is not the issue in question here. The fact that you have read the Bible for yourself and expressed disagreement with his “rebound” doctrine makes you a rarity among Thieme followers. But you still can not deny that the rigid, dogmatic, legalistic teachings of “rebound” can have terrible effects on a Christian’s spiritual life. And Thieme presents this doctrine as an indispensable requirement to avoid the terrible fate of the “loser.” The fact that you did not fully accept this doctrine and therefore have not been as damaged by it as other Christians have, is no excuse for Thieme. And you also can not deny how strongly Thieme discourages the people from reading the Bible for themselves and forming their own convictions (dogmatically teaching them that they are incapable of doing this). According to Thieme, all the time you spent reading the Bible was wasted time. You should have been reading his books instead. And the fact that you personally may not have been as damaged by Thieme-ism as many other Christians, is no excuse for Thieme’s legalism and his cultish control and intimidation of the people.

There are more of your statements (particularly concerning 1 John 1:9) that I would like to comment on, but I’ll have to save it for my next post.

Liberty

Ephesians said: "One additional thing I need to add...Dr. Wall's thesis was written in the late '70's. Thieme has revised and changed so many doctrines in the 20 years since then, as to make several portions of his thesis moot. As an example, you mentioned Thieme's teachings of love..as of 2000 Thieme had come to teach that the love of God IS his integrity; they are synonymous. Anybody who left the church over 20 years ago has missed out on a lot. In some cases there are arguments going on over views that Thieme no longer holds, or has revised. "

Truthtesty says: 1979 is Ephesian's "late '70s" when Dr. Wall wrote his dissertation. I can remember during the seventies, Thieme saying "the love of God is his integrity". This is nothing new. I would like everyone to notice the rhetoric of Epehesians THAT WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF seeks to discredit Dr. Wall's dissertation by planting false seeds of doubt. I left the church a long time ago, but some of my family members still attend. None of Thieme's false "doctrinal breakthroughs" have changed. The Dr. Wall's dissertation is to the point and accurate.

Ephesians said: In some cases there are arguments going on over views that Thieme no longer holds, or has revised.

Truthtesty says: This is a misleading lie! show me the proof show me the case show me the view. Epehesians you should be ashamed! But like most Thiemeites you have left your conscience behind, the moment you submitted to Thieme's false authority. Oh I am sure Thieme has dusted off a few words here and there, but there are no major changes. Thieme is a cult leader and unless he completely threw all his teachings out and started completely over, Thieme's teachings are not to followed or trusted. To anyone reading this. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO LISTEN TO THIEME W/O READING THE CRITIQUES
AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER OF DR WALL'S DISSERTATION, ANYTHING NEW NEEDS TO BE CHECKED OUT WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL STUDY AND A MULTITUDE OF COUNSELORS. Thieme is just 1 opinionated theory out of literally thousands of pastors. There is nothing wrong with talking to anyone about christianity. As a matter of fact we are supposed to, but we are also supposed to be wise as the serpents and watch out for false teachings. Do not be disempowered by Thieme's false system or anyone's. Thieme has no magical SUPERGRACE, it doesn't exist, it's a carrot on a stick. You are your own authority over your own christianity(personal study, prayer etc..), not Thieme nor anyone else.

Truthtesty

Truthtesty -

Thieme did not begin teaching that "the love of God [i:c2c8e8326c][b:c2c8e8326c]is[/b:c2c8e8326c][/i:c2c8e8326c] His integrity" until the year 2000. Up until then, the attributes of justice and righteousness, along with His love were taught as composites of His integrity.

Liberty -

I did not mean to imply in my posts that I disagreed with Thieme's teachings of rebound. Forgive me if I did not clarify what I meant. I was simply stating that I agreed with your synopsis of what rebound is on a mechanical level; you accurately portrayed it. I should have made that clear.

However, I should state that Thieme had, especially over the last 20 years, gone to great lengths to emphasize the role of spiritual growth in daily Christian living. In the early years I think rebound was emphasized to the point that maybe people thought that all they had to do was rebound and that was enough. The point has been stated over and over, especially since about 1984, that if all you do is rebound and attend classes, you are going backward. To sit in a room and listen to tapes all day is NOT a spiritual life, and Bobby has really hammered this into our skulls over the last few years. Yes, you've got to be filled with the Spirit, yes, learning doctrine is vitally important, but if you don't go out and exercise your spiritual muscle and make [i:a9b65ac11f]decisions [/i:a9b65ac11f] compatible with divine outlook it's all over for you.

I like to think of 1 John 1:9 as a connection to God, like a modem being on-line. All naming of sins does is re-establish the connection; it does not in and of itself guarantee any spiritual growth, though Thieme does teach the concept of eternal rewards for time logged in fellowship. Like I said, you can rebound constantly, you may be able to quote doctrine til you're blue in the face....but your private spiritual life and growth consists of taking the doctrines and using them in your life. So there definitely has been, though not a change in the teaching of the mechanics of 1 John 1:9, an ongoing clarification of the role of spiritual growth that has been ongoing through the last 20 years or so.

Liberty, I do believe that we have an inheritance, which is those very rewards we speak of, and the "loser" believer will miss out on those, but I think when Thieme uses phraseology like "parties in the Gazebo", most people think in a dynamic enough manner to realize this is a metaphor. To me, it just seems extremely obvious, I don't know what else to tell you.

As far as Thieme's use of specialized vocabulary, again, this has helped me immensely. His vocabulary might bother other people who wish to stick to Biblical terms. As I stated, Thieme isn't for everybody. For me, and for those who attend classes at Berachah, it works very well.

ephesians,

I will respond to your comments on the koine Greek and other issues in a future post. First, there are some things that need to be said about the “rebound” issue.

In order to take a good look at how destructive, legalistic, and unscriptural this doctrine really is, let us start with the ramifications that Thieme himself attaches to this doctrine:

[i:f651e36feb]Beware of false teachers who say, “You don’t need to name your sins to God; they were already forgiven at the cross.” With this distortion, rebound becomes irrelevant! This false doctrine attacks [b:f651e36feb]the very foundation of your spiritual life[/b:f651e36feb]. To believe this lie is to live a life of [b:f651e36feb]perpetual carnality[/b:f651e36feb], [b:f651e36feb]reversionism[/b:f651e36feb], and eventually die [b:f651e36feb]the sin unto death[/b:f651e36feb]. [/i:f651e36feb][emphasis mine]

As I have already thoroughly explained, this doctrine goes hand-in-hand with the “winner-loser” doctrine. You absolutely [i:f651e36feb]must [/i:f651e36feb]“name and cite” your sins constantly to stay “in fellowship,” or you will suffer the frightful consequences of becoming a “loser,” which I described in previous posts. These are all things that Thieme teaches will [i:f651e36feb]literally [/i:f651e36feb]happen to the “loser”; they were never presented as “metaphors.” This legalistic burden is/was emphasized constantly by Thieme and Thiemite pastors across the country.

The simple fact is this: There is no such thing as “rebound” anywhere in the Bible. 1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Two very obvious facts here: [b:f651e36feb](1) [/b:f651e36feb]It does not say, “If we confess our sins, we will be restored to fellowship.” There is not one scripture that even hints that our fellowship with God can ever be lost. Our new nature possesses the very righteousness of God and can never lose fellowship with Him; our old sinful nature gets left behind when we die and was never in fellowship with God in the first place. [b:f651e36feb](2) [/b:f651e36feb]It does not say, “If we confess our sins, we will be filled with the Spirit.” Confession of sins and the filling of the Spirit are never even mentioned in the same passage. 1 John 1:9 and Ephesians 5:18 have nothing to do with each other. Throughout Ephesians chapters 4-6, Paul is dealing with basic principles of Christian living and integrity, much like Colossians chapters 3-4. Throughout 1 John 1, John is dealing with the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, much like the first chapter of his Gospel. These two chapters in two separate books (Ephesians 5 and 1 John 1) are about totally different subjects. In order to make his “rebound” fallacy work, Thieme has to build this magical bridge between 1 John 1:9 and Ephesians 5:18, which simply doesn’t exist in the Bible. And in so doing, he has created a false doctrine that has held many of God’s people in fear and bondage.

As I stated previously, Thieme has adopted the Roman Catholic concept of confessing sins—the idea of continually confessing all your sins as long as you live, a terribly legalistic burden. But “confession” is never used this way in the Bible. Confession of sins in the Bible is a simple acknowledgment that you commit sins—that you are a sinner and therefore need a Savior. This is why, when John the Baptist came preaching “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” the Jews came to him, “confessing their sins.” This is the way confession is used [i:f651e36feb]in the Bible[/i:f651e36feb] (as opposed to the way it used by Thieme and the Catholic Church); it is used in the same way in many passages, such as Romans 10:9 and 1 John 4:15, where those who “confess” Christ will be saved. To “confess” Christ is to simply acknowledge Him as your Lord and Savior—another synonym for “believing,” “repenting,” or “obeying the Gospel.” (There are many ways in which the Bible describes what happens at salvation.) To “confess” your sins is to simply acknowledge that you sin—that you’re a sinner in need of a Savior. (Remember, John wrote this epistle in refutation of the Gnostics, who denied that Jesus was the Son of God, and also denied that they sinned.) To “confess” does not mean to “name and cite” a whole list of all the sins you can think of—this is nothing but an invention of Thieme’s. Obviously, admitting you’re a sinner and believing in Christ as your Savior go together—you can’t believe in the Savior without acknowledging (confessing) that you sin and you need the Savior. There are many proud unbelievers who claim that they don’t sin and they don’t need God.

It is clear that 1 John 1:9 is about salvation. The entire chapter is about the Person and Work of Christ. And the result of the confession of sins in 1 John 1:9 is that [i:f651e36feb]our sins are forgiven [/i:f651e36feb]and [i:f651e36feb]we are cleansed from all unrighteousness[/i:f651e36feb]. Even a beginner Bible student knows this is what happens when a person is saved.

As we can see in the above quote from Thieme (and there are many more), he dogmatically teaches that every believer who doesn’t practice this constant, mechanical “rebound” ritual will be a “loser” and will die miserably under the sin unto death. [b:f651e36feb]There is [i:f651e36feb]no spiritual life whatsoever [/i:f651e36feb]without “rebound.” [/b:f651e36feb]The absurdity of such teaching is obvious from Scripture and from plain common sense. There have been thousands, even millions, of godly, faithful, spiritual Christians throughout history who did not take Thieme’s view of confession of sins. (Remember, Thieme is dogmatic that the moment you sin, your fellowship with God is broken, you lose the power of the Spirit, and everything you do is meaningless to God until you “rebound” again.) There are many good Christians who love the Lord and who agree with my view that confession of sins does not apply to a believer. There are many others who believe that they should perform some sort of confession, but they do it perhaps once a day or once a week. So according to Thieme, 99% of their prayer, study, and service is meaningless, and they are [i:f651e36feb]all [/i:f651e36feb]in “reversionism,” [i:f651e36feb]none [/i:f651e36feb]of them love God, and they will [i:f651e36feb]all [/i:f651e36feb]die a miserable death under God’s discipline. The majority of our persecuted brethren around the world today are suffering in vain because they’re spending most of their time “out of fellowship” without the power of the Spirit. There are innumerable examples of how absurd Thieme’s teaching is. I remember seeing a wonderful video documentary several years ago about Christian Vietnam veterans who had been POWs and were brutally tortured by the Viet Cong. Their testimonies to the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the sustaining power of the Holy Spirit carrying them through this terrible time were enough to make you weep. And yet, throughout the whole video, not one of them ever mentioned confessing his sins so that he could “access the power of the Spirit” or “stay in fellowship.” And we could go on and on. Under Thieme’s teaching, we are expected to believe that millions of faithful Christians spent their lives “out of fellowship,” under “perpetual carnality,” in “reversionism,” and without the power of the Spirit, and died miserable deaths under the sin unto death (including many who suffered greatly for their faith and even died a martyr’s death).

I have not “rebounded” for two years, and I have many Christian friends who have not “rebounded” for a much longer time. And yet, during this time, we have prayed together and had many prayers answered; we have searched the Scriptures together and learned many wonderful truths from God’s Word; and we have had many opportunities to serve our brethren and witness to the lost. Where does this leave Thieme’s legalistic, elitist theories of “rebound” and “loser believers”?

For many years, Thieme taught an obvious contradiction—he taught the finished work of the Cross and that our salvation was complete at the moment we believed in Christ, and that all our sins (past, present, and future) were washed away and forgiven. I am sure that souls were saved, and for this much I must give him credit. However, after teaching the completeness and efficacy of our Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross, he turned around and taught that even after we’re saved, we still have to “name and cite” our sins to be forgiven again. He tried to justify this by inventing the unscriptural theory of two kinds of divine forgiveness—“salvation forgiveness” and “post-salvation forgiveness.” But this theory just doesn’t work. Once God forgives you for a sin, you’re forever forgiven, and you never need to be forgiven a second time (“double jeopardy”). Thieme himself apparently finally realized this contradiction, and changed his teaching. But did he change his erroneous interpretation of 1 John 1:9 to conform to the overall scriptural teaching of the Cross? No. He compromised the doctrines of the Cross and stubbornly clung to his pet doctrine of “rebound.” In so doing, he began teaching a doctrine that can only be described by one word—[i:f651e36feb]heresy[/i:f651e36feb].

We’ll let Thieme speak for himself (emphasis mine):
______________________________

Beware of [b:f651e36feb]false teachers [/b:f651e36feb]who say, “You don’t need to name your sins to God; [b:f651e36feb]they were already forgiven at the cross[/b:f651e36feb].” With this distortion, rebound becomes irrelevant! This false doctrine attacks the very foundation of your spiritual life. To believe this lie is to live a life of perpetual carnality, reversionism, and eventually die the sin unto death.

The Bible teaches that [b:f651e36feb]your sins were not forgiven at the cross[/b:f651e36feb]. Unlimited atonement, reconciliation, propitiation, and redemption were accomplished by the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. All personal sins of human history were imputed by God the Father to Christ and judged, not forgiven.

When are your sins forgiven? At the moment of faith alone in Christ alone, [b:f651e36feb]all of your [i:f651e36feb]presalvation [/i:f651e36feb]sins are forgiven[/b:f651e36feb]. The work of Jesus Christ redeemed mankind from the slave market of sin opening the way of salvation and forgiveness for anyone.

What about the sins you commit after salvation? [b:f651e36feb]Every time you name your sins privately to God the Father, those [i:f651e36feb]postsalvation [/i:f651e36feb]sins are forgiven. [/b:f651e36feb]When you use the rebound technique, He is faithful and just to forgive those sins and purify you from all unknown sins. Rebound is the only means to regain the filling of the Holy Spirit, restore your fellowship with God, and resume your spiritual life.

Redemption is God’s provision; forgiveness is your option. Learn to make [b:f651e36feb]the distinction between redemption and forgiveness[/b:f651e36feb]; your spiritual life depends on it! You cannot have a spiritual life without redemption. You cannot continue your spiritual life without forgiveness. (Series No. 376, Spiritual Dynamics, lessons 1385 to 1395)
______________________________

This is such a repulsive heresy that I hardly know where to begin. Thieme is outrightly contradicting numerous scriptures that promise us the forgiveness of all our sins when we believe in Christ. He is denigrating the Cross of Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Bible can you find this kind of “distinction between redemption and forgiveness” that Thieme teaches here. How can you have one without the other? How can an unforgiven person be redeemed? How can an unforgiven person be reconciled to God? How can I be going through life with countless unforgiven sins, and still be redeemed? Where does this leave the millions of Christians who do not practice Thieme’s version of confession of sin? They will enter eternity with countless unforgiven sins because only their presalvation sins were forgiven...just like the Roman Catholic who will enter eternity with unforgiven sins if he misses his “confession” in the booth with the priest.

Thieme realized he had a problem. 1 John 1:9 does not even mention the filling of the Spirit (it’s not even mentioned in the entire epistle). So he has to somehow twist the meaning of forgiveness in 1 John 1:9 to mean the same thing as the filling of the Spirit. But now forgiveness has to be something that is dependent on the believer’s efforts after salvation. And Thieme takes his intellectual, unscriptural speculation so far that he will rather deny a fundamental doctrine of the Cross than give up one of his favorite doctrinal inventions—the false doctrine of “rebound,” which, along with “winners and losers,” has been the bread-and-butter doctrine of his church for decades.

It is very fortunate for Thieme that there is no such thing as a “loser believer.”

To Ephesians:

How was your vacation?

I remember Thieme saying God's love is his integirty back in 1976. But just take your argument for a moment, it's just like I said. "I am sure Thieme has dusted off a few words here and there, but there are no major changes."

If you want major change Ephesians Thieme would have had to change his cultic doctrine of right pastor.

Per Dr. Wall
Critique
At the heart of Thieme's doctrine of right pastor is a questionable concept of church government. However, even if Baptist polity is accepted, [b:34a1d04a95]Thieme has added some elements to the Baptistic view of the pastor which are clearly contrary to the biblical pattern and [u:34a1d04a95]which produce some dangerous spiritual byproducts[/u:34a1d04a95].[/b:34a1d04a95] We will examine Thieme's three basic distinctive concepts first; then we will list a series of dangerous implications of such a doctrine. Basic view. First, he has an unbalanced view of spiritual authority. Pastoral or elder leadership authority extends to the overseeing of the operation of church ministries, the maintenance of sound teaching in the local church and the protection of the believers' souls from false doctrine (I Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28, 29;Heb. 13:17). [b:34a1d04a95]It clearly involves leadership by example, not by lording over or "bullying" the flock (I Pet. 4:3; Heb. 13:7)[/b:34a1d04a95]. Thieme has added to these clear biblical directions. He claims that he must be the final source of doctrine for all in his flock, and that the individual believer cannot study Scripture for himself. Not only does the Scripture not teach such a view of doctrinal learning, but it teaches the opposite. [b:34a1d04a95]Spiritual growth, Paul says in Ephesians 4, involves two major ingredients that are contrary to the Thiemite doctrine: first, the gift of pastor-teacher is an equipping gift (verse 12, katartismon) designed to prepare all believers (the saints) for doing the job of ministering and edifying; second, maturing takes place as all the members of the body minister the truth of God to one another in love (verses 15, 16), not just one select, gifted person. Second, he confuses faith in biblical truth with a faith in a particular teacher (i.e. one's right pastor). At no time does Scripture exhort the believer to single out one particular teacher as his final doctrinal authority. On the contrary, there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ.
Thieme's right pastor doctrine could very well be called the "Diotrophes doctrine."[/b:34a1d04a95][b:34a1d04a95]Third, he gives a false impression as to the believer's personal responsibility relative to testing the reliability of teachers and relative to his own personal study. For Thieme, once one joins a church fellowship, he is to unquestioningly respond to the pastor's authoritative teaching and rely on this pastor to do his study for him. This contradicts the biblical example of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) and the clear exhortations to test the doctrine of teachers (I Cor. 12:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3; Gal. 1: 6-1 0). It also contradicts the intent of the gift of pastor-teacher. According to Ephesians 4, it along with the gift of
evangelist and the temporary gifts of apostle and prophet were primarily given to the church to prepare or equip the saints to minister and edify the body of Christ. It would seem strange indeed to think of one's being equipped to minister as a self-sustaining, contributing unit in the body of Christ, and yet unable to be selfsustaining in his own personal study of Scripture.[/b:34a1d04a95]


Truthtesty

Testy -

vacation starts now, but before I go, I would very interested to know if you could provide the source for your statement that Thieme taught the love of God is His integrity back in 1976, because this would be startling to say the least. Do you at least remember the series you were in, so I can go through the lessons and find it?

Take Care

To Ephesians:

Ephesians said: In some cases there are arguments going on over views that Thieme no longer holds, or has revised.

Truthtesty says: Show me the arguments going on over the views that Thieme no longer holds. Show me why he changed the views and the corresponding date. Also, did Thieme offer any sort of an apology for being wrong and misleading Thiemites in Thieme world? (2 arguements will do for starters)

Take Care,

Truthtesty

Ephesians said: "Thieme has revised and changed so many doctrines in the 20 years since then, as to make several portions of his thesis moot."

Truthtesty says: None of Dr. Wall's dissertation has been rendered moot because Thieme has new false teachings. A bankrobber never tells you he robbed the bank, you have to prove it. Dr Wall did prove Thieme heretical, therefore Thieme's false doctrines will always be moot. Just because Thieme has been inside more banks doesn't mean he didn't rob them to. Would you trust a convict who robbed a bank? Would you trust a con artist who sold you a "lemon" car? Biblical caution is urged by Dr. Wall on any of Thieme's new teachings.

Thieme never expected anyone to prove Thieme's doctrine heretical, therefore moot. Thieme didn't expect anyone to be smart enought to.
Another thing Thieme did not expect was the internet. Thieme expected to be dominant in the new medium of the time - taperecording (1950's-1990's). It is the free discussion on the internet that has opened up Thieme's falsehoods. As far as I know Thieme never admitted to making a single mistake. Thieme assumed that his submissive members would always be "locked in" to his false teachings until the end of time. Thieme never expected to be debunked on the internet. I am thrilled that Thieme's falsehoods are finally meeting the justice of the truth. Thieme always said that he would die at the pulpit. I am not surprised Thieme retired early, he could see his game was up.

Ephesians said: How would holding debates in a Church, which introduce ideas counter to the pastor's teachings, be of any benefit to anybody?

Truthtesty says: Debates would have allowed the biblical truth of Jesus to reign, not Thieme. It is obvious that Thieme was too arrogant to admit that he made mistakes. I can see how you would ask that question seeing how you are a duped follower.

Take Care

I need to respond to one more thing, as I did not see your post, Liberty, regarding rebound, at the time of my last post.

Liberty, I am glad you clarified your position regarding rebound. If I understand you correctly, you are relating 1 John 1:9 strictly to salvation. What this means is that, before we even get into the issue of whether or not the naming of sins might produce restored fellowship or the filling of the Spirit, we must deal with this question:

"Is 1 John 1:9 something that needs to be used in an ongoing manner in the daily spiritual life of the believer"?

Your response is that it does not. That this verse is strictly related to salvation.

At this point I could get into a very long post regarding the context of the verse in 1 John 1:9, spirituality vs. carnality, the tense of [i:2b33d0b754]homologeo[/i:2b33d0b754], and the importance of spirituality being black and white so that we are not subject to the same kind of lost in space subjectivity and emotionalism that befalls those who adhere to works salvation.

But, given the time that I have, I will just let the Bible speak for itself. In viewing this verses, ask yourself, are the people stating these things believers or not?

[i:2b33d0b754]
"I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight" (Luke 15:20)[/i:2b33d0b754]

"[i:2b33d0b754]Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "the Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die." (2 Sam. 12:13)[/i:2b33d0b754]

"[i:2b33d0b754]For [b:2b33d0b754]I confess my iniquity[/b:2b33d0b754]; I am full of anxiety because of my sin" (Ps. 38:18 )[/i:2b33d0b754]- this was written by David


Also, Thieme is hardly a lone wolf crying in the woods. Neither is the concept of rebound strictly relegated to Roman Catholicism. I did a Google search, and just randomly came up with these sites espousing the doctrine that confession of sins must be ongoing. (I can't speak for my agreement with every doctrine on these pages; I just glanced at them to find what I needed). These are all Protestant as far as I can tell.

[www.christinyou.net]
[www.biblefood.com]
[www.biblestudymanuals.net]
[www.gospelweb.net]
[www.transferableconcepts.com]
[www.bibletruths.net]
[www.christianitytoday.com]
[www.biblefragrances.com]
[www.gty.org]

That last one is from John MacArthur, former president of DTS. Honestly, I could have posted links all day long, but you get the idea. The belief that confession (naming) of sins is something to be used in the daily life of Christians, in Protestant circles, is hardly something that starts and ends with Thieme.

Testy -

We already have argument one in progress, Wall complains of Thieme's strictured view of God's love in his dissertation. Indeed, Thieme used to teach that, God's love was only an anthropopathic component of His character, and must first be filtered through his righteousness and justice. I point out that, as of 2000, Thieme completely revised this...he began to teach the Love of God [b:2b33d0b754]is[/b:2b33d0b754] His integrity. This is, though not nearly a 180, a major revision. An entire tape series explores the doctrine: Love of God = Integrity of God, from Spiritual Dynamics 2000, lessons 1720-1738.

When I brought this up, you responded thusly:

[i:2b33d0b754]"I can remember during the seventies, Thieme saying "the love of God is his integrity".

and --

"I remember Thieme saying God's love is his integirty back in 1976"[/i:2b33d0b754]


So I have presented an argument, the initial teaching and the revision..you said this revision didn't happen so the ball is in your court to show that it didn't..all you have to do is to refer to a tape series; I can find the lesson from there.

Testy, Thieme retired (at the age of 85, by the way), not because he "knew his game was up", but because he began to suffer from Alzheimer's. He took his doctor's recommendation to step down. Anyone listening to the recordings, starting in about March of 2003 can hear, for themselves, his lapses in memory begin to take hold.

There are two things I agree with you on, Testy. One is that prayer is an incredibly effective tool, and those who diligently want to know God, and desire a relationship with Him can use it in a very powerful manner. If you want to know something, just ask God. If you want wisdom, just ask God. But we also have to ask...what is our motivation? Is it pure, or does it involve revenge and bitterness, especially about past events in our lives?

The second thing is that, yes, the internet age has been incredible. Before this era, people really did have to trust what the authorities told them. It was just too cumbersome for the average person with a family and full time job to go into heavy scholarly research on any given topic...so many people tended to just take what they were given. (It's my personal belief that, unfortunately, the internet has also contributed to an increase in atheism and agnosticism, since so many people have access to information attempting to debunk the Bible).

So really, people can now, from the comfort of their own homes in front of their computers, do extensive research and make decisions for themselves.

This includes Thieme's sample messages:

[www.rbthieme.org]

(His library of over 10,000 hours of free messages can also be accessed at the site)

His son's sample messages:

[www.berachah.org]

And, yes, even Dr. Wall's dissertation (here is the new link, so readers won't have to go through msnusers):

[l.b5z.net]

With information and prayer, I believe those who really seek God will find Him, and that really is an incredible thought. So, yes, by all means, absorb all the information you can get.

Anyway, it has been interesting talking with you both, Liberty and Testy. I never did want to engage in endless debate (nor do I have the time to do that), just to clarify misconceptions and present the other side of things. Regardless of what doctrines we believe, I believe God knows what is in our hearts, and always responds to those thoughts.