In the published doctrinal tract “The Barrier” R.B. Thieme says this:
The Barrier is impassable and insurmountable. No human being can break through this obstruction. Mankind is born on the wrong side of the barrier hopelessly separated from any relationship with God.
And then in the same tract R.B. Thieme says this:
God always knew that man, through negative volition, would alienate himself from his Creator. Consequently, in eternity past God the Father designed a perfect plan to remove the barrier. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to be judged for our sins on the cross to bring man from enmity to peace with God. Even though Jesus Christ removed the barrier, your relationship with God depends on you.
1. First he states that “Mankind IS born on the wrong side of the barrier”, is this a Bill Clinton “is”? Or is this “hillbilly speak” by an expert Greek/Hebrew linguist? Does “is” mean “was”? If the barrier was removed 1,900+ years ago how can we today (as Thieme formerly stated) be born “separated from God”?
2. Notice “man through negative volition would alienate himself” and “to bring man from “enmity to peace with God”. Clearly this cannot be speaking of “all of humanity” and if pressed Thieme would be forced to state that “man through negative volition” is referring to just 1 single man, Adam. However, Thieme’s second use of the word “man” includes all of humanity: “Jesus Christ, to be judged for our sins on the cross to bring man from enmity to peace with God”. The “negative volition” remark was in reference to Adam, as it is impossible to argue that “we exercised negative volition at birth”. As Thieme formerly stated that we are born in inescapable slavery, cannot do anything about it, being powerless, and clearly implies no volition is involved, as we did not make the choice tol be born in that condition at all. So where is R.B. Thieme’s basis for enmity against us? If we are born with corrupted DNA because of Adam’s negative volition, that is not a basis for wrath or emnity, nor for separation from God either.
3. Another word for “judged” is punished. Is the punishment for being born with a sin nature and helpless to do anything about it, wrath and death? What of the infant who lives 5 minutes and dies, did God have enmity with him, and if so what did the infant deserve and what was the infant himself responsible for? (this is typically where attempting to justify the infant being an object of wrath, subject to punishment is totally abandoned…while pretending that this is not what they are doing).
R.B. Thieme further states in The Barrier tract:
Even though Jesus Christ removed the barrier, your relationship with God depends on you. Only one issue remains: What do you think of Jesus Christ? Only one decision separates you from God. If you believe in Christ you cross the line of separation and receive God’s gift of eternal life.
1. How does one’s “relationship with God”, which formerly depended on being totally free from the sin nature, occur in a single moment in time…when one is clearly no such thing as an “instantaneous deliverance” (physical death of the believer and translation of the living body at His return not withstanding) from the corrupt nature, which is slavery to sin?
2. Why are there no legal distinctions between punitive and non punitive offenses?
3. Why is it that only “slavery to sin” and “bondage to sin” only mentioned, which are non punitive offenses that the “man” is not responsible for and cannot do anything about? Why is there no mention of rapes, murders, and such CRIMINAL OFFENSES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH “SLAVERY TO SIN AT ALL”?
4. Why is it that in Thieme’s first statement with regard to “man not being able to have a relationship with God, “slavery to sin” was the issue, then later sin needing to be punished was the issue, then believing in Christ is a single moment is the issue…when one is clearly still enslaved to the corrupt nature? I would like to hear a Thieme follower argue how “instantaneous, perfect, practical, and actual personal righteousness occurs in a single instant in time? (don’t bother trying to supplant “positional truth” as though it were the actual state righteousness of a believer in a single moment, because you will look foolish).
In R.B. Thieme’s Salvation tract, He states:
Every sin that has ever been committed in the history of the human race was imputed to Him on the cross and judged.
1. Does this include sins that do not call for punishment? Does the linguist and languages expert know how to write English? Thieme stated “Every sin that has ever been committed in the history of the human race”, therefore we must conclude that R.B. Thieme is doing what all other penal substitute liberal theologians do, which is to go beyond blurring the lines between punitive and non punitive offense…but erases it completely, and then pretends that all sins, regardless of how minor, whether by accident or ignorance, or states that are beyond one’s control, were foisted upon the man without his consent, DID NOT INVOLVE NEGATIVE VOLITION….AND LUMP EM ALL INTO THE PUNITIVE CATEGORY OF CAPITAL OFFENSES AND CRIMES.
Are we responsible for this and was Christ punished for this? And why are we back to “being separated” when Christ supposedly removed the barrier?
We think of ourselves as free, but we are born in an inescapable slavery—bondage to sin. As members of the human race we exist in a slave market of sin, helpless to redeem ourselves. We enter the world with a sin nature, separated from God and powerless to establish a relationship with Him.
1. This is like circular reasoning. First the barrier is us being enslaved to sin, then it is wrath needing to be appeased, sins being punished…but then states we are born separated and cannot have a relationship because of being enslaved to our sin nature…but then there is no barrier, but we are still separated…but believe in a single moment in time and BOOM INSTANT RELATIONSHIP…but not totally delivered from the sin nature yet that “kept us separated”.
2. If asked if the new believer is delivered from the sin nature in 5 second or less, they would have to respond in the negative. Deliverance from the flesh is a process, which takes more than 5 seconds, an hour or a day or a year.
3. I do not recall Paul saying “work out your salvation with fear and trembling…then after breakfast roof the house.”
4. In order to control how things are perceived and viewed in religious deceptions particular words and phrases and selective lines of reasoning have to be chosen. Correspondingly, many words and ways in speaking about a subject are avoided. The false premise and basis used to lead up to the penal substitution view is carefully constructed and the goal is to make people think they all of humanity are criminals, capital level offenders (But words like these cannot be used). To state that “all of mankind are criminals and even babies are capital offender criminals and deserve the death penalty”…is simply not believable, because of the words used. The trick in deceptions is to use false premises in conjunction with carefully chosen words to imply things, in order to make a false line of reasoning, seem reasonable.
5. The similarities to limited atonement Calvinism occur because the same false premises and false line of reasoning are used. Limited atonement uses the word “total depravity” with regard to man’s natural state and states that God has wrath toward man because of this. And just as limited atonement Calvinism depicts the depraved as being responsible for their state (but will never plainly say that in those words), R.B. Thieme’s doctrines imply the very same thing. If you notice in the “Barrier” and “Slavery to Sin” tracts, criminal offenses are never mentioned, but only mankind’s state at birth and presalvation are…which are states that do not call for wrath against “the man”, but yet depict God as holding each man responsible for his state at birth and onward…even while stating that (paraphrase) “man is unable or totally helpless to do anything about his total depravity or slavery to sin”.
6. When mankind’s slavery to sin and total depravity are the only things mentioned “in a tract”, and God as depicted as “having wrath toward man for it”, clearly the writer is implying that God has wrath on “each individual man” for things that are beyond the man’s control. Yet God is depicted as treating every man as if those things were under each man’s control, and as if each man is responsible for their own state at birth and onward. This is the same false stance that limited atonement Calvinism uses, as the depraved that are not covered by penal substitution are treated at the final judgment, “as if they were responsible for their states and acts”. In order to avoid charges that Calvinism violates the principle of double jeopardy is the very reason for the limited atonement, as they portray men being punished in hell for their total depravity. Calvinists freely admit that there is absolutely no difference between “the reprobate” which are not covered by atonement and “the elect” who are covered…as to their states of total depravity. Unlimited atonement advocates like R.B. Thieme also attempt to avoid double jeopardy by claiming that people are punished with hell because they rejected the idea of penal substitution…and not because of their slavery to sin by claiming Christ was punished for that. But both camps hold total depravity and possessing the “sin nature” as being a punishable offense, implying that the person is responsible for the state they are born in…without using those plain words. To state: “You are born with a sin nature and are responsible for it and you deserve to be punished for it”, is simply not done by R.B. Thieme or Calvinists, because the clear violation of law then becomes apparent.
The very simple question of “is each man responsible for the state that he is born and lives in, and if so, explain exactly how each man is personally responsible for it and deserves to be punished for the state that each is born in?”…and they need to use principles of law in order to do it, which cannot be done. Citing Adam’s “negative volition” and assigning the sin nature to each man due to Adam’s “negative volition”, will not aid them, as they cannot make the case that all other men can be held responsible for Adam’s decision. To claim that we are all responsible for Adam’s decision is so unrealistic that it borders on psychosis.
This is a quote from “brainout”, who is a follower of R.B. Thieme and claims to be a contract lawyer with 30 years experience. “Brainout” also claims to be an expert in Thieme’s doctrines. She said this: “So therefore if dying even if baby sins (like crying, since it’s rude) — the child goes to heaven.”
- Yeah that’s right, brainout considers an infant crying as being a sin, as if the infant is being rude. This is the lengths to which some supporters of R.B. Thieme will go in order to support Penal Substitution. http://brainout.net/frankforum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=410
- Also what is notable is the liberal tactic of vacating their Penal Substitute position because it cannot be defended regarding infants…and they rather focus on the “infants needs”, or what happens with the infant after they die…rather than address their unadmitted belief that “all deserve wrath” and their belief that “Christ suffered that wrath in the place of all” (which includes infants). Though R.B. Thieme’s printed doctrinal tract states: “Every sin that has ever been committed in the history of the human race was imputed to Him on the cross and judged“, You would be hard pressed to get “brainout” to state that Christ was punished in the place of the infant who cried and suffered what the infant deserved.