radaph:

Your interpretation and spin on Galatians is interesting.

If you take the time to discuss your interpretation with biblical scholars and/or pastors, very few would agree with you and they will set you straight.

I don't have the time to go on and on with you here, which seems to be your tendency.

If you are seriously interested in this issue of authority and accountability perhaps you should attend a bible study within a respected mainstream evangelical church in your area.

There must be such churches that have bible studies in your area.

Your comments on this board are often supportive of the kind of suffocating authoritarian leadership both Paul and Jesus warned about within the New Testament.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2008 03:05AM by rrmoderator.

Quote
rrmoderator
radaph:

Your interpretation and spin on Galatians is interesting.

When did we start discussing the book of Galations, specifically? And when did I explain or even elude to my interpretation of it?

Quote
rrmoderator
If you take the time to discuss your interpretation with biblical scholars and/or pastors, very few would agree with you and they will set you straight.

I have been around a while, and seen that there are pastors and bible scholars who will agree with just about any notion you can imagine if you look hard enough. That proves nothing.

Quote
rrmoderator
I don't have the time to go on and on with you here, which seems to be your tendency.

I didn't ask you to go on and on. You said (in essense) the bible supports pastor-bashing, and I asked you to show me where it says that. I'm still waiting.

Quote
rrmoderator
If you are seriously interested in this issue of authority and accountability perhaps you should attend a bible study within a respected mainstream evangelical church in your area.

There must be many churches taht have bible studies in your area.

There are, and I have. And amazingly enough, I have heard pastors from quite a few churches which had no offiliation with Berachah or the Col in anyway, agree with my statement here. But I'll hold myself to the same standard I held you to, and make it clear that if all the pastors in the world agree with me, that doesn't prove me right.

Quote
rrmoderator
Your comments on this board are often supportive of the kind of suffocating authoritarian leadership both Paul and Jesus warned about within the New Testament.

You know, honestly I think the difference between you and I is this.
If Col Theime's church was truly as destructive as you and many of the people of this forum claim it to be, then I might agree that the church (i.e. the body of Christ, not the actual local church) needs to speak up and make it clear to the unbelieving world that they do not condone this type of teaching, so that their testimonies are not damaged.

But that would be the end of it. He is cause no physical harm of any sort. I grew up in the prep school, I was never molested. I sat in the congregation as an adult, and I was never robbed or even strongly persuaded to give even one single penny to the church. And when we took the eucharist it was grape juice, not spiked Koolaid.

So since the harm being done is purely spiritual, and highly debatable, I see not reason to try and shut the place down. Which is exactly what people like Truthtesty would like to do I think.

radaph:

You seem to be here in an effort to argue endlessly and defend Thieme.

Paul is sharply critical of leaders in Galatians, Galatians is often cited as an example of criticizing bad leadership.

Paul is also critical of Peter in Acts.

Again, if you are seriously interested in the issue of pastoral accountability perhaps you should attend a bible study in your area at a mainstream church that has democratically elected church government. They can then explain this to you in-depth.

This should be an easy process since the overwhelming majority of Protestant churches have such accountability throughout the US and around the world.

Your arguments on this message board are a convincing means of better understanding what is "cult-like" about Thieme and his teachings.

Destructive churches are not all equally destructive, some are worse than others, i.e. only the most extreme groups drink the "Koolaid."

But that doesn't excuse the bad behavior of lesser known groups and leaders.

Others that have attended Berachah and posted on this board apparently feel very differently than you do about the organization and Thieme's influence.

[...]I haven't excused the Col for the false teachings I learned at Berachah. I have forgiven him though, before God and two witnesses at a deliverance session. They recommended I forgive him, at the time I was bitter and didn't want to. But I changed my heart when I confessed my sins to God. [...]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2008 02:39AM by rrmoderator.

radaph:

The rest of your last post was redundant and and an example of the kind of endless repetitive rant that won't be moderated through any more.

As you can see it was cut.

More of the same will get you banned.

It's interesting that you were told to forgive Thieme by your handlers in the "deliverance session."

Was that within Thieme's church?

Seems very controlling.

BTW--When people don't accept or agree with your arguments it doesn't mean that they somehow missed your point, it means simply that they most likely think your point/argument is wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2008 03:09AM by rrmoderator.

[...]the deliverance was not conducted at Berachah, by Berachah, or by anyone who had any offiliation with Berachah. Do you remember me talking about all this in the previous thread? Do you remember what the deliverance was for? It was from the lies that I was taught at Berachah. I seriously doubt anyone at Berachah would agree with how I felt about those lies, let alone offer to deliver me from them. [...]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2008 04:25AM by rrmoderator.

radaph I thought the goal of this forum was to reveal "true" cults for what they are. Just because you are convinced Berachah is a cult doesn't mean you are right. The same could be said of Dr. Wall, whoever he is.

Berachah and Col Theime are far from perfect. And there are some major problems that I have with his ministry. But I have no intention of slandering his name all over the internet. Pastor-bashing is extremely counter-productive to the plan of God. Even if said pastor is wrong about many doctrines.

There is a verse in 1Corinthians I believe, that deals with this. They were concerned with what some other church was teaching about some doctrinal issues. Paul basically told them, "are they teaching Christ crucified?" "If so, leave them alone, they are not your enemy."

Does that mean you should go to their church. No.
Does it mean it's your job to judge them and try to bring them down? No.

Truthtesty: I do reveal Thieme for the cult that he is. Thieme is a cult because he meets the criteria. AND I do admit that Thieme says to "obey the law", But? That just means they are not a "criminal" cult, but they are cult. And I think if the opportunity provided itself ie.: Many thiemites are "Special Forces" soldiers, Thieme teaches that ALL Muslims are SATANIC, AND Thieme also says to "kill as many of the enemy as possible" SO when I hear of the recent Blackwater incident and 17 Muslim Iraqi citizens were shot down in cold-blood [www.democracynow.org] it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if thiemites would just "kill as many of the Muslims as possible" because Muslims are satanic. I have no idea if thiemites are in Blackwater Corp., being that Blackwater is a "Special Forces" corporation chances are high.(Also Eric Prince is a strict Calvinist) If that were the case, that would be criminal. On the same token, some Christians are classified as "Bleeding heart Liberals" by Thieme. Blackwater is currently working inside the "Domestic" United States along the border and in other areas and Emergencies. For ex: Blackwater did security in Katrina [www.democracynow.org] . There were claims of people being shot in Katrina. Thieme teaches that "Bleeding heart liberal" Christians are "wicked stupid". And that God needs to wipe these people out to preserve the USA.

They try to claim that they have a message from God, when in reality they do not. What is said here about the clergy in the day of Jeremiah can be said about a large percentage of the clergy in the United States today. I would estimate that 85 percent of all clergymen in America are apostates. Although some may personally be believers, they represent religion and “cosmos diabolicus.” They are for social action and social reform instead of regeneration; they are breast-beaters; they are “bleeding hearts”; and they are leading us to national destruction! The strongest political organization in this country today is the National Council of Churches; and everyone, from our President on down, is listening to what its leaders have to say. What they have to say, in effect, is national destruction! National Crisis by RB Thieme Jr

The best thing that ever happened to the Japanese at the end of World War II was the atomic bomb! And it was moral! They were stupid-wicked and they had to go; otherwise today EVERY Japanese would be stupid-wicked, and the entire race would be annihilated. Every time there is a great disaster to a nation in history and a large segment of the population is wiped out, you can write that nation off as stupid-wicked! God has to preserve the human race. You are here today with some degree of sanity because God keeps wiping out stupid-wickedness. This, of course, is not a doctrine for the “bleeding hearts.” In fact, most of the bleeding hearts are stupid-wicked themselves with a guilt reaction! Emotional Revolt of the Soul by RB Thieme Jr.

Truthtesty: So, if the wrong circumstance presented itself, it is possible that a "Special Forces" thiemite would go "postal" on someone they perceived as "being a Bleeding heart liberal" Christian? or "postal" on an Iraqi youngster? Yes indeed. And that would be criminal.


I have made mistakes and I acknowledge them. There is a difference between "Pastor-bashing" and exposing Thieme's falsehoods so thousands of Christians can heal. You healed. You had your confession at your deliverance session. That helped you "your way".

Also would you be specific as to the 1 Corinthians reference.

radaph to moderator If you do discover that somethings are false, and enough things that you won't even listen to this person anymore. It's still not your job to go tell the world about this. If you claim the bible does command this type of behavior, could you quote some verses to support this?

Truthtesty: 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.


Truthtesty



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2008 10:13AM by Truthtesty.

radaph:

You previously entered this post.

"I am aware that Paul and other apostles warned the church of false prophets, (wolves in sheep's clothing), and to be on the lookout for them. And when someone comes to you in Jesus' name, don't take his word for it, but compare the things he claims to what the scriptures claim. But that is for your own discernment. If you do discover that somethings are false, and enough things that you won't even listen to this person anymore. It's still not your job to go tell the world about this. If you claim the bible does command this type of behavior, could you quote some verses to support this?"

I thought you might like to see what the late, very well known and respected pastor H.A. Ironside had to say concerning this issue. I'm sure you must have heard Thieme mention Ironside, who served as the pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago for many years. Ironside was a frequent guest speaker at Dallas Theological Seminary when Thieme was a student there. As I have been told by some long time Thieme tapers, Thieme even claimed that H.A. Ironside approached him about taking over the Moody Church after he left. That seems a bit implausible considering how different their views on Scripture were. At any rate this short teaching on "Exposing Error" might answer some of your questions.


Exposing Error: Is It Worth While?


Objection is often raised, even by some sound in the Faith, regarding the exposure of error as being entirely negative and of no real edification. Of late, the hue and cry has been against any and all negative teaching. But the brethren who assume this attitude forget that a large part of the New Testament, both of the teaching of our blessed Lord Himself and the writings of the apostles, is made up of this very character of ministry---namely, showing the satanic origin, and therefore the unsettling results, of the propagation of erroneous systems which Peter, in his second Epistle, so definitely refers to as "damnable heresies."

Our Lord prophesied, "Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." Within our own day, how many false prophets have risen; and oh, how many are the deceived! Paul predicted, "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch." My own observation is that these "grievous wolves," alone and in packs, are not sparing even the most favored flocks. Undershepherds in these "perilous times" will do well to note the Apostle's warning, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." It is as important in these days as in Paul's ---in fact, it is increasingly important--- to expose the many types of false teaching that, on every hand, abound more and more.

We are called upon to "contend earnestly for the Faith once for all delivered to the saints," while we hold the truth in love. The Faith means the whole body of revealed truth, and, to contend for ALL of God's truth, necessitates some negative teaching. The choice is not left with us. Jude said he preferred a different, a pleasanter theme, -- "Beloved, my whole concern was to write to you on the subject of our common salvation, but I AM FORCED to write you an appeal to defend the Faith which has once for all been committed to the saints; for certain persons have slipped in by stealth (their doom has been predicted long ago), impious creatures who pervert the grace of our God" (Jude 3,4,Moffat). Paul likewise admonishes us to "take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Eph. 5:11, R.S.V.)

This does not imply harsh treatment of those entrapped by error-- quite the opposite. If it be objected that exposure of error necessitates unkind reflection upon others who do not see as we do, our answer is, it has always been the duty of every loyal servant of Christ to warn against any teaching that would make Him less precious, or cast reflection upon His finished redemptive work and the all-sufficiency of His present service as our great High Priest and Advocate.

Every system of teaching can be judged by what it sets forth as to these fundamental truths of the Faith. "What think ye of Christ?" is still the true test of every creed. The Christ of the Bible is certainly not the christ of any false ism. Each of the cults has its hideous caricature of our lovely Lord.

Let us who have been redeemed at the cost of His precious blood, be "good soldiers of Jesus Christ." As the battle against the forces of evil waxes ever more hot, we have need for God-given valor. There is constant temptation to compromise. "Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach." It is always right to stand firmly for what God has revealed concerning His blessed Son's person and work. The "father of lies" deals in half-truths, and specializes in most subtle fallacies concerning the Lord Jesus, our sole and sufficient Saviour.

Error is like leaven, of which we read, "A LITTLE leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Truth mixed with error is equivalent to all error, except that it is more innocent looking, and therefore more dangerous. God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any truth -and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation. To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word, and treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died.

Exposing error is most unpopular work. But from every true standpoint, it is worth-while work. To our Saviour, it means that He receives from us, His blood-bought ones, the loyalty that is His due. To ourselves, if we consider "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, " it insures future reward, a thousand-fold. And to souls "caught in the snare of the fowler" --how many of them God only knows-- it may mean light and life, abundant and everlasting.

mile2

Hello Mile 2

I am a little puzzled. Does the Ironside quote favor the silence in public upon finding error or false teaching or not? Don't think it does.

I presume the point in posting it was to justify public rebuke or exposure of false teachers, or teachers who teach some false things.

Nowadays, the "local flock" is no longer just in one spot in ministries such as Bereachah's since they propagate Thieme's materials freely to all who ask, whoever, whereever.

Can you clarily?

Sistersoap

Hi Sistersoap,

I think H.A. Ironside's sermon is a very strong affirmation and encouragement to those of us who speak up publicly against the "grievous wolves" and their propagation of error. He commends the courage of those who expose error--" showing the satanic origin, and therefore the unsettling results, of the propagation of erroneous systems which Peter, in his second Epistle, so definitely refers to as "damnable heresies."

And really, if a person loves the Lord, then he or she is honor bound to defend His Word against any evil distortions. It's true that speaking up is "unpopular work", but it may mean the release of many souls "caught in the snare of the fowler."

Even though this piece was written in 1951, before Thieme's rise to prominence, the paragraph on truth mixed with error especially relates to Thieme's doctrine. On this and other forums Thieme followers have excused his error by pointing to something he taught that was correct. But as Ironside said,
"God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any truth -and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation. To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word, and treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died."

I'm sure you know Thieme's teaching on this is the exact opposite. His followers believe nothing should be said if they disagree with a teaching for fear of some extreme punishment befalling them.

Sistersoap, please read this sermon once more, and then if any parts are still confusing let me know what they are.

mile2