where my webpages seem to 'differ' from Thieme:
Pastor is to teach you to THINK DOCTRINE. Any teacher's purpose is to teach thinking, really. So it's not wrong to take what you learn, and play with it. It IS wrong to take what you learn as a catechism, rotely repeating it as if you honored your teacher/ parent/ authority that way. Yet man imagines that with reference to God, he should engage in rituals and taboos, memorize Bible, parrot his teacher; and, those who don't do those things, must be evil. Hence some feel that if one independently uses what was learned, draws further conclusions, or even (seemingly) contrary ones, such 'unauthorized' use of the material 'undermines authority.'
On the other hand, God wants us to SYNTHESIZE from what He teaches us, out from the pastors He appoints for us: Isa53:11 (LXX) and Matt4:4 & Eph4:11-16, not Zech7:3-6. One demonstrates the efficacy of that authority by independent USE of what was learned.
You know: when he talks the Civil War, football or military science, don't you have to sometimes go running to a history book, military dictionary or ask a football expert, so you can better get what was taught? In addition to those resources, the many good encyclopedias and BibleWorks 5 have proven valuable. BibleWorks 8 has even more collateral reference material, plus the Targums, Peshitta, Mounce, Wallace, and little Kittle. Tim Dowley's The Atlas of Bible and Christianity (which you can purchase at Amazon) is also a helpful addition.
Therefore, please do not deem my website vocabulary to be 'New Age', etc. Rather, classical theology terms are often fuzzy. So I try to rephrase the same ideas, with clearer language that is not loaded with legalism.
This is particularly true with reference to the development of what became his "Love is the Integrity of God" theme from May 2000, onward. You can trace how it began and developed if you start in the 1977 Romans series, and then listen sequentially. From Romans, came 1Jn and then Revelation, then 85 Ephesians, then 91 Israel and James 4, then 92 Spiritual Dynamics. In that latter series, beginning at the tail end of 1996, the Love-is-the-Integrity-of-God doctrine is laid out. I actually learned the doctrine itself from the 1997+ tapes, and wrote LordvSatan1.htm's "Integrity Properties" section as a result, back during the year 2000. Four years later, I heard what he was teaching back in 2000. It was quite a surprise, therefore, to see that the "Integrity Properties" in LordvSatan1.htm already summarized what he said! So the flow of development, is discernible.
Far as I'm concerned, his "Love is the Integrity of God" answers all the theological conundra which have plagued Christianity for centuries: simple circle of Love from the Love contract of Isa53:10-12, referred back to over and over again in the NT, by the subjective-and-objective genitive of agape. Awesome economy and deft expression, in God's Word. Will take mainstream theology perhaps a century, to discern and expatiate on how this "Love is the Integrity of God" is the capstone answer to all theological debate, apparent discrepancies, contradictions, etc. in our understanding of Bible. Can't put my spiritual life on hold waiting for credentialed folks to discover what the Word of God already perfectly says, however. So much about 'Thieme's Theme', as I like to call it, pervades my websites.
BONUS: the vast incompetence yields an empirically-testable pattern of satanic involvement which -- if you know what the Colonel has taught on the Angelic Conflict -- exactly matches what he's taught. Hence my "Thinking" series' Appendix (SatStrat.htm) was born from the pattern of the incompetence being so evident. Satan's attacks all have a "DIOS" pattern, to make God 'foreign' to us: Derision, Imbalance, Obfuscation, Substitution. Satan&Co. follow this pattern religiously (heh) in everything from politics to how they get Bible verses to be mistranslated. So once you know the pattern, you can empirically test it on anything. Predictable like the sunrise. So the larger issue is not man's incompetence, but demonic involvement to 'encourage' us hapless humans, to be goofy about God. Hence I'll sound critical, and often: to point out how stupid and blind we have been -- thus the only possible explanation for such stupidity and blindness, is the 'help' our negative volitions get, from Satan&Co. In which case, the motive to blame anyone for anything, dies: for who of us isn't blind? Hence the reason for dissecting error, is to learn how to spot Satan&Co.'s attacks in our own lives; to find our own landmines of negativity; not, to point fingers at others.
People both within and without the church have long been trying to turn Col's teaching into a denomination; surely that movement will continue, and at length, 'succeed'. Which movement, is amply demonstrated on the internet: instead of competently analyzing his teaching with respect to its content, a website writer often makes the Col. himself the focus, whether pro- OR con- his ministry. Nor can they well summarize or refute any content he's taught.
On the other side of the ledger, too many RBTers just parrot the Col.'s teachings and vocabulary; they are trying to be faithful, of course. But it comes off as slavish and non-thinking, as if promoting the teacher, rather than learning what was taught; which gives those who seek to vilify him, even more (unwarranted) fuel.
This is how Satan religifies: he sets up attackers, which makes those under a teacher, constrained to evidence doglike loyalty.
Many within the RBT-taught groups now illustrate b) without a corresponding a), hence our excessive focus on how DOCTRINAL we are. Even if we get all the doctrine right but don't have Love, we are nothing, says 1Cor13:1-3.
Now if b) is too divorced from a), then even b) corrodes. So notice that some RBT pulpit practitioners, slowly morph teaching toward false doctrines, i.e., faith-plus salvation ideas, a delay between Rapture and Tribulation; a claim Temple practices post-Crucifixion, Daniel 9:27, Revelation 11, are valid; that Christ's literal blood paid for something; that (lol!) He had to TAKE HIS BLOOD to heaven for His Payment to be efficacious, etc.
Thus 'the doctrinal movement', swayed as it is by human approbation, contradicts Bible. Its practitioners use RBT vocabulary, so you are fooled into thinking that
b) BIBLE says those falsehoods.
Again, history repeats itself. By the 90's AD you had the beginning of the bilious "Church Fathers", whose apostacy was so bad, you need Pepto-Bismol to read even 1 Clement, for example. So should you wonder that a 'movement' with its human-viewpoint 'consensus' standards, would result in those silly "councils" of Constantine's day?
Now, since "the doctrinal movement" is going off in the wrong direction, you shouldn't be surprised to know that it has critics. You can view these critics simply by Googling "The Doctrinal Movement". And oh, when you read their critiques, you realize the critics are even more off-base, even more anti-Bible. Thus Satan works his own tandem: 1) distort the Truth and then 2) advertise the distortion by raising up another even more distorted view, as a critic of the first distorted view. Thus 1) the truth becomes too complicated to know, and 2) one ends up picking one or the other, false 'sides'. This too, has been the history of Christianity.
By contrast, Thieme constantly harped on using Bible to "apprehend the exact thought of the WRITER". Not, to make the Bible fit into one's prescribed doctrinal classifications. For, BIBLE is first, not our doctrines from it. Once the process of learning Bible is reversed into making it corroborate what you believe, you make what you believe the god instead of God. That's precisely how Catholicism got started: a bowel movement. Let's not ruin the teaching we got by denominizing it, k? For then we demonize and deminimize it.
So I'm not trying to 'sell' the Col.'s ministry, as God needs no help -- remember when the Colonel said we don't get out and "push the plane"? Nor do I mask the fact I'm merely a student under him, writing webpages so to understand his teaching of Bible Doctrine better.
From what I can tell, my website material corroborates and extrapolates from the 50 years of classes R.B. Thieme Jr. It wasn't really my intention to corroborate, so much as to vet the data myself. But corroboration has largely been the result.
Bear in mind that GOOD teachers constantly revise what they've taught in the past, to upgrade. So if you're familiar with, say, classes from 40 years ago, much of that material was revised in 1997 et seq. of 1992 Spiritual Dynamics (Series 376, running 12 years total). Teaching is an ongoing process, very academic, always pressing forward.
So too, you should know from the oodles of OT verses requiring believers to name their sins -- that's why you took the animals to the priest, for crying out loud. I tried to explain all this in my Youtube video on Rebound, "Why We Need 1Jn1:9". But you can quickly see the import by scanning Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalm 32 and 66, 2Chronicles 7, Zechariah 7, Malachi 3, many other passages. NOT ADMITTING SIN was the reason for discipline pan-OT. Defiled Temple resulted in no filling. We are the Temple Now. Very easy to see why all John had to do was use the "purification" keyword, in 1Jn1:9.
Now, in "the Law of Double Punishment" subseries within 1992 Spiritual Dynamics, the Colonel explained how your post-salvation sins are NOT forgiven -- duh, that's what the OT said too -- because people in the congregation were complaining about Rebound. So if you've not heard that upgrade in the doctrine, then you'll surely want to get it. Start, though, at the beginning of 1992 Spiritual Dynamics, since the whole doctrine of Rebound is upgraded beginning with Lesson 1.
Having said this, my website material does seem to differ from the teaching in these key advanced respects:
More: this timing is part of a long line of Time grants the Bible accounts beginning at Adam's fall, and Crucifixion is the 1470th anniversary of that original Passover. As you might know, many 'scholars' contest whether the Lord actually died on Passover, and how long He was in the Grave, so the Bible verses seem to conflict, even in the Greek. They don't: so click here for PassPlot.htm, which proves the foregoing from Bible, and also backs up Thieme's year 2000 claim that the Lord was actually born on Chanukah, 4BC.
I'm making many videos documenting God's Orchestration of Time from Scripture. At first, just the numbers in Bible were documented; now, I'm finding proof in Bible's own Hebrew meter, starting in Psalm 90, which Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and even Paul's Eph1:3-14, employ. Best place to start seeing all that is in Mirroring.htm. In Youtube five(!) video playlists are devoted to different exegetical aspects of this doctrine. The exegesis and the history are plotted out from Adam forward, so you can vet the data IN THE BIBLE. Videos in each series after the first, are yet unfinished. These are:
However, every doctrine the Colonel taught about believers buying time, about Dispensations, etc., is proven CORRECT if you again just switch to solar years in your accounting. In fact, that's what started me down this road: I didn't know where Thieme 'got' his teaching of "believers buy time", a doctrine he's taught since at least 1977 (Genesis series). So I kept asking God for the Bible backup, and what you see here, is the ongoing result. So God's demonstrating why Thieme's teaching is correct (and not only him, of course), but to do that one must correct the idea of 'year' and a few other things, as you'll see me cover in the videos.
More specifically, my webpage 'differences' versus Thieme are as follows. The videos and webpages listed in 1-5 above, show extensive Bible backup and explain how these 'differences' were derived. I want to stress that every 'difference' ends up vindicating something he taught. He himself was always seeking to refine and correct what he taught, as you can repeatedly hear him say from 1985 onward, in class.
Upshot: what the Colonel said in Lessons 25-29 of Isaiah 53 series, and what he said in the Daniel series Lesson 45 (on Daniel 9:25) are corroborated, but with a different and much more elaborate accounting than those lessons provide. So while the website material contradicts Thieme's statements of the accounting, yet the material corroborates his conclusions.
Basically the chart summarizes the 1992 Spiritual Dynamics series, which is absolutely fabulous. Thieme didn't teach the SMP.doc's five LXX infinitives from Isaiah 53:10-11 as the process; but as you hear what these infinitives do, you'll be amazed how well they 'dovetail' to what he said. What happened to Christ, were those infinitives. What happens to us, are those infinitives. So once more, what seems like a 'difference' in the webpages, only ended up confirming what we RBTers, have heard all these years. If you are an RBTer and you've not gotten (Series 376) 1992 Spiritual Dynamics, I heartily urge you start getting it now, and listen sequentially. Series begins with Rebound and its Bible backup, and goes forward through all "10 Problem-Solving Devices" as you'll see in the chart. Takes him 12 years to cover the material, and when he hits PSD#10, he goes on a tangential discovery of what "Love of God" means, which as said earlier, is likely the most important theological clarification for the 20th century.
Beyond these things, I can't think of any conclusion in the webpages which materially differs from what the Colonel teaches. Everything else seems mere extrapolation, corollaic. I make a big stink about how the Trinity should be described as "Three AND One" rather than "Three IN One" as the badly-worded Westminster Confession claims. But really I got that from the Colonel's many upgraded explanations of Trinity, especially when He called Them "Triplets" (I forget which class that was, but it was somewhere around 1997-2000 of Spiritual Dynamics). So THREE PERSONS AND ONE ESSENCE. Much easier to understand, than the goofy Hydra-headed definitions in either Westminster Confession or "Unicity" in the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you're interested in this, click here for the LordvSatan2.htm explanation or click here for the Due Diligence Disclosure "Trinity" explanation, which is more detailed.
Again, it wasn't my intent to corroborate, but to vet the information myself, before the Lord. What ended up happening, was an extreme extrapolation, corroboration -- even where contradicting them -- with the result that I'm very surprised. Ergo this disclosure. Nonetheless, please exercise caution as you read, using 1Jn1:9 as needed, so you don't waste God's or your own, time.