Rhema: The Basic Belief Of The "word Of Faith Movement"..., How does it relate to Adventism? Options

[Ozzie]

I vaguely recall seeing a picture (or drawing) of EGW in a similar position...and holding the Bible. Does anyone recall seeing that picture? Is SQ suppose to be the new EGW?

Now, that is a scary thought!

[roxe]

re: post 105

WOW!! since when is Shelley Quinn a "brethren???

Isn't she a "sisteren"??

This post has been edited by roxe: Sep 22 2007, 09:42 PM

[roxe]

another question... from the front cover of Shelley's book:

"Let the Bible in your hands be God's power in your life"

the power is the Bible??

isn't that like a magic book??

[SoulEspresso]

It seems to be a true saying that people find what they seek.

I ask, because I don't know you, but all of your posts here appear to me to be negative and critical.

Ian, if you've read enough on these boards, you'd know that the context for this particular thread is the following. It is the perception of people on both sides that those on the other sides are so married to their POV about Danny that no one can convince them of anything either way. Some of us have agreed that the best thing to do to beat this habit ... is to find something that we all can discuss objectively.

My perception is that this thread is an attempt to do that, because we can look at Ms. Quinn's teachings and compare them with scripture.

If you disagree with an individual's conclusions, then explain how. But we're trying to leave ad hominem attacks behind. Please help us with that.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Sep 22 2007, 10:36 PM

[SoulEspresso]

These passages seem to use logos and rhema interchangeably: John 10:19-21, John 12:48, Acts 10:44, Acts 13:44-46, Acts 16:36-38. Look for "saying(s)" and "word(s)" depending on which version/translation you're using.

Perhaps, if there's no distinction between the two, you may not be able to attach this kind of definition to rhema.

Moreover I was only able to find two instances in which "word of God/Lord" were equated with "Scripture" (Daniel 9:2, John 10:35) but even in those cases, what if the Bible/Scripture contained God's Word, rather than being God's Word? That would make more sense based on the grammatical errors and syntactic variances that are there and obvious due to human writership. It would also go along with what EGW said in 1SM that the writers of Scripture were "God's penmen, not His pen."

If that's the case, then the words of the Bible have no inherent power except what God chooses to impart on His own terms.

I had to think carefully about what we've got so far on this thread. Sometimes I feel like God is giving me a particular message--does that make it authoritative? Yes. Do I consider my perceptions of God's message to me infallible? No. Do I get messages for other people? Not yet.

Looking forward to more thoughts from the denizens here.

[västergötland]

Sometimes it is said in discussions such as this that the power, while not inherent in the words of the bible itself, is hidden in the promises of the bible. Thus, find a promise and claim it for your own circumstance and what God promised, surely He will do... What think ye all?

[lurker]

Sometimes those promises are conditional. If we are willing to comply with the conditions and if we do not twist the promise to say something it wasn't intended to say, I believe we can trust God to do what He says he will do. We can trust the promise as if it was already fulfilled and we can go about our business thanking God. We must ask in accordance with God's will, not selfishly and we must be willing for God's will to be done as sometimes He fulfills His promises in unexpected ways and not as we might wish at the time but He knows better than we do what is best.

This is way different than demanding something from God. That is like people trying to use the Holy Sprit rather than letting the Holy Spirit use them.

[Ian]

Ian, if you've read enough on these boards, you'd know that the context for this particular thread is the following. It is the perception of people on both sides that those on the other sides are so married to their POV about Danny that no one can convince them of anything either way. Some of us have agreed that the best thing to do to beat this habit ... is to find something that we all can discuss objectively.

My perception is that this thread is an attempt to do that, because we can look at Ms. Quinn's teachings and compare them with scripture.

If you disagree with an individual's conclusions, then explain how. But we're trying to leave ad hominem attacks behind. Please help us with that.

Thank you. I agree, it would be good for ALL, to leave the ad hominem attacks behind.

I hope that you if you perceive that others are doing that you will speak up just as quickly and remind them also, in just the same way as you just did with me.

In line with that, I don't believe asking if, or insinuating that Shelley Quinn is trying to look like, or be the next Ellen White, because she is looking and holding a bible up in a picture, is helpful here. Nor do I think all the commentary about that is of merit in this discussion where we are trying to compare Mrs. Quinn's writings to the bible. I have seen many ministers and teachers do the same thing in my many years, and I never once thought that about them, or heard anyone else comment about it. Hopefully we can leave that kind of thing behind also.

I disagree with this individual's conclusions:

Thank you for your comments... and now that we have seen that she uses the same defininitions of Rhema as is used by the Word of Faith Pentecostal Rhema groups... I guess we can lay aside the "attributed" part of the statement?

I think you misunderstand the significance of the word "Rhema". That was a clue... and an important one to me... though I heard the Pentecostal Word of Faith essences coming through on her TV presentations even before I heard of the book or that she was using the term Rhema.
....
Thank you very much for this link, PB .... this is most helpful... and really quite sufficient to show what kind of world view she has built her belief ediface on. I won't go into that today... perhaps tomorrow.... but it is there ... very plain to see ... in her very first chapter. She simply has a different view of reality than what scripture portrays. Though it is not without its echo in some Adventist circles....

I'll leave it here for now.... so sad........... ......

First posting a link to a Shelley Quinn's book is not sufiicient to prove what Watchbird is claiming, anymore then it would be sufficient to prove what I am claiming. That would be like answering someone asking why Adventists believe in the unconscious state of the dead by giving them a link to a online bible, and then claiming that is sufficient to show we are correct.

Here's why I disagree with the above claim"now that we have seen that she uses the same defininitions of Rhema as is used by the Word of Faith Pentecostal Rhema groups" It is so far a empty one. There is no basis or support for it given, no quotes, no references, no proof offered. In fact it does not seem that the Word of faith movement has the same definiti same definition as the pentecostal groups, according to the Wikipedia quote they fall into the evangelical group...

Further, a link to the pentecostal definition of Rhema, and a attachment to Shelley Quinn's definition have both been posted in this thread, as evidence to prove the opposite. They are NOT the same.

Pentecostal Christians view Rhema as the voice of the Holy Spirit as it speaks to the believer at the present moment. In this sense, the Christian should be guided by the Holy Spirit as he/she is guided through inner feelings, impressions and experiences. God's Rhema, the direct words of God to the individual, can also be imparted through the words of others, such as a preacher in a worship service, or a friend who counsels them. In this sense, God's direct guidance can be determined by a variety of means.....

I think it would be good to set the accusations and comparisons to Charismatic/pentecostal teachings in regards to what Shelley Quinn has been teaching about Rhema to rest, and get on the same page here, and look at what the word of God says, and how Rhema and Logos are used in context.

I don't think it does any good to argue about whether what she wrote is truth or error if we don't consider or discuss what the standard teaches and proclaims, and what the measuring rod for dividing truth and error is for this issue.


Thanks

This I think is the most important thing that can be done in this discussion. We need someone who has Ms. Quinn's book to look up where in the book she makes her definitions, and to post them.

For the context of logos vs rhema in NT, it would be helpful to look through things in the Bible to see how each are used in their respective passages. It would take a while because they're common words, but ... if you want to know what the Bible teaches, you have to study the Bible.

Also really helpful, if anyone here has access to a seminary library, would be to look up the entries for these words in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Strong's is helpful but you want to be sure you have an updated version--the older ones had mistakes in them.

...I'm withholding judgment on the teaching until I know more. My initial feelings are, what's been reported on these threads is disturbing ... but I want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Soul

[WillowRun]

I've read through this thread carefully. And this is what I think I've learned about Rhema.....


You keep demanding that God answer your prayer. You pray over and over until you think you have the right response. Name it and claim it? My kids do this with me. My answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. It depends on what I think is best for that individual child. Since we are God's children, why do we think our Father's answer should always be yes? Sometimes, I believe, God says no. I don't think Rhema as presented in this thread, leave open the possibilty that God is even capable of saying No.

If I've missed something, please let me know...

Respectfully,

Willow

[watchbird]

Here's why I disagree with the above claim"now that we have seen that she uses the same defininitions of Rhema as is used by the Word of Faith Pentecostal Rhema groups" It is so far a empty one. There is no basis or support for it given, no quotes, no references, no proof offered. In fact it does not seem that the Word of faith movement has the same definiti same definition as the pentecostal groups, according to the Wikipedia quote they fall into the evangelical group...

Further, a link to the pentecostal definition of Rhema, and a attachment to Shelley Quinn's definition have both been posted in this thread, as evidence to prove the opposite. They are NOT the same.

HERE is the link previously given here which gives a typical definition of Rhema as held by various groups which use the term. These would include Word/Faith groups, and some (but not all) Pentecostal groups. Evangelicals and mainline Christians do NOT use the term nor do they apply it in the same way as the various "Rhema" groups do.

Compare it with the page that you, yourself, posted from Shelley's book. It certainly looks the same to me.

I think it would be good to set the accusations and comparisons to Charismatic/pentecostal teachings in regards to what Shelley Quinn has been teaching about Rhema to rest, and get on the same page here, and look at what the word of God says, and how Rhema and Logos are used in context.

I don't think it does any good to argue about whether what she wrote is truth or error if we don't consider or discuss what the standard teaches and proclaims, and what the measuring rod for dividing truth and error is for this issue.
Thanks

I am really, really, REALLY getting tired of these directives as to how to proceed, with the accusations against those of us who are attempting to do some solid research before moving to any specific comparisons, and above all I am VERY tired of your constant attempt to bypass the gathering of knowledge.... especially when it is so evident that you do not know enough about the subject to even comment on it.

Now the facts of life are that I have enough on my plate and enough deadlines to meet so I shouldn't even be taking time to write this much. But since this IS a topic on which I have a considerable amount of knowledge, I am adding it to my "to do" list, and will do the research needed to be able to give specific urls which will give additional information on what I present.

But that is not going to happen in an hour... or a day... and maybe not even in a week. So just leave off with your accusations and insinuations to me... and spend you time doing a little research on your own.

It will also take time for me to secure a book of Shelley's so I'll have the whole thing to analyze rather than only the pages available for on-line reading.

But put THIS in your hat and KEEP it there... that my primary interest is not in Ms Quinn! What I would like to accomplish here is to give enough information and resources so those reading it will be equipped to recognize errors of this kind wherever they meet them.... and there are those of you who may be very shocked at some of the places they are to be found.

[Ian]

[http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema is the link previously given here which gives a typical definition of Rhema as held by various groups which use the term. These would include Word/Faith groups, and some (but not all) Pentecostal groups. Evangelicals and mainline Christians do NOT use the term nor do they apply it in the same way as the various "Rhema" groups do.

Compare it with the page that you, yourself, posted from Shelley's book. It certainly looks the same to me.

I read the page at that link when Grandmad posted it several days ago.

I believe it is biblical, it does seem close if not the same as how Mrs Quinn defined it. That is my understanding also.

The explanation they give is also the same that mainstream christians and evangelicals use when discussing and studying the underlying Greek words in scripture.

What it is not, is Pentecostal.

I also provided the link to Wikipedia,which explained the difference between the 2 views, as you seem to be stating the opposite; here it is again in case you or any other's missed it.

It is the same link that PB originally gave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhema

Wikipedia, entry: Rhema

Differences in interpreting Rhema and Logos

Pentecostal and Evangelical Christians have different understandings of how Rhema should be used and understood.

Pentecostal Christians view Rhema as the voice of the Holy Spirit as it speaks to the believer at the present moment. In this sense, the Christian should be guided by the Holy Spirit as he/she is guided through inner feelings, impressions and experiences. God's Rhema, the direct words of God to the individual, can also be imparted through the words of others, such as a preacher in a worship service, or a friend who counsels them. In this sense, God's direct guidance can be determined by a variety of means. The test of the authenticity of a Rhema from God is simple... How does it compare to the whole of Scripture? Orthodoxy says that God will not speak a word that contradicts His written word, the Scriptures, so there is a built-in safeguard to prevent misinterpretation.

By contrast, the Logos (λόγος), is typically used in Scripture to refer to what God has said to His people, that is, the collection of God's sayings about Himself, His relationship with His creation and His Church. The Logos of God is true for all time and in all places. It is easy to see how this can be interpreted both as the bible (God's Word Written) and in the Person of Jesus Christ (God's Word in the Flesh) as seen in John's Gospel, Chapter 1.

The Holy Spirit often uses passages in the Logos of God to create specific guidance, Rhema, for the individual. An example of the Rhema of God is to consider how several different people can read the same passage of Scripture and each sees something different. This occurs because each person is in a different place spiritually in their individual lives so God's word to each of them in that moment of their lives is different - specific to their needs. The Logos (God's original meaning and intention) has not changed, but the Holy Spirit has used it to speak to each according to his or her needs

Evangelical Christians, however, have a much different understanding of rhema. Many evangelicals see rhema as being almost synonymous with logos. In other words, the specific guidance we receive from the Holy Spirit at any given time can only be discerned by the general principles laid down in the written word - the Bible. But this sort of guidance is not the same as that described above - it can only give general guidance about how the decision should be made. If we used the same example of the Christian wondering about when to start their business, the evangelical would argue that God will not give any specific guidance - it is up to the person to work it out for themselves. What God can give guidance on is on how that business should be run, and what the business actually does (Running a Brothel, for instance, would be wrong).

For evangelicals, then, the rhema is when God speaks directly to a person as they apply the Bible's teaching to a specific subject.

I am really, really, REALLY getting tired of these directives as to how to proceed, with the accusations against those of us who are attempting to do some solid research before moving to any specific comparisons, and above all I am VERY tired of your constant attempt to bypass the gathering of knowledge.... especially when it is so evident that you do not know enough about the subject to even comment on it.

Now the facts of life are that I have enough on my plate and enough deadlines to meet so I shouldn't even be taking time to write this much. But since this IS a topic on which I have a considerable amount of knowledge, I am adding it to my "to do" list, and will do the research needed to be able to give specific urls which will give additional information on what I present.

But that is not going to happen in an hour... or a day... and maybe not even in a week. So just leave off with your accusations and insinuations to me... and spend you time doing a little research on your own.

It will also take time for me to secure a book of Shelley's so I'll have the whole thing to analyze rather than only the pages available for on-line reading.

But put THIS in your hat and KEEP it there... that my primary interest is not in Ms Quinn! What I would like to accomplish here is to give enough information and resources so those reading it will be equipped to recognize errors of this kind wherever they meet them.... and there are those of you who may be very shocked at some of the places they are to be found.

I'm sorry you are upset. I disagree with your conclusions, but I hope we can discuss all this in a unemotional and rational manner, by avoiding the personal accusations and comments, and just sticking to the issues and topic from now on.


Thanks.

This post has been edited by Ian: Sep 23 2007, 10:58 AM

[PeacefulBe]

Thank you. I agree, it would be good for ALL, to leave the ad hominem attacks behind.

I hope that you if you perceive that others are doing that you will speak up just as quickly and remind them also, in just the same way as you just did with me.

In line with that, I don't believe asking if, or insinuating that Shelley Quinn is trying to look like, or be the next Ellen White, because she is looking and holding a bible up in a picture, is helpful here. Nor do I think all the commentary about that is of merit in this discussion where we are trying to compare Mrs. Quinn's writings to the bible. I have seen many ministers and teachers do the same thing in my many years, and I never once thought that about them, or heard anyone else comment about it. Hopefully we can leave that kind of thing behind also.

snip

Thanks

I hope we can all grasp the concept and really try to make this thread an exercise in cooperation and laying aside the ad hominemesque responses that many of us have practiced bandying about. I know it will be hard for some, perhaps even for all, since I am seeing frustrations rising and buttons being pushed, but I pray we can accomplish this and get so good at it that we can practice it throughout the 3abn forum. When we fail, let's continue to remind each other of our goals here and carry on.

Noticing a comparison with Shelly Quinn's cover picture and photographs of Sister White is not a bad thing, IMO. It shows that some are paying attention to detail. It goes overboard, though, if we attempt to declare that this is the message Shelly Quinn was wanting to convey. What I see, personally, in the cover photo, is a symbolic depiction of God's Light shining down onto both the reader and His word. As time passes, we will be able to see if Ms. Quinn is trying to position herself as our next prophet, but I believe that supposition it is premature at this point.

[Skyhook]

PB, I agree with what you say. I do not know much about this topic but I agree with watchbird tthat it is important to be able to recognize error. It can be very subtle.

Ian, would say as an aside that one can appear to be rational and reasonable but have an attitude of condescending arrogance. This is a detriment to one's communication and credibility.

[SoulEspresso]

Why don't we do direct side-by-side comparisons with the various sources? I know they've all been linked already, but perhaps this would be helpful for some. IOW no one will have an excuse for not seeing the parallels if they read this post.

Logos

Advanced Training Institute (ATI), a Word-of-Faith organization:
There are two primary Greek words that describe Scripture which are translated word in the New Testament. The first, logos, refers principally to the total inspired Word of God and to Jesus, Who is the living Logos.

Shelley Quinn, Exalting His Word:
The word logos implies the sum of God’s revelation to humanity. It’s the vast unfolding of the reasoning and power of the mind of God. Logos is the expression of His will and purposes. The entire content of the Bible is the “logos” Word of God, also referred to as the “Word of Life” in Philippians 2:16. Jesus is also called the Logos (“Word”) of God. In Christ, we find the perfected revelation of God to humanity.

Wikipedia on the Pentecostal view:
By contrast [for Pentecostals], the Logos (λόγος), is typically used in Scripture to refer to what God has said to His people, that is, the collection of God's sayings about Himself, His relationship with His creation and His Church. The Logos of God is true for all time and in all places. It is easy to see how this can be interpreted both as the bible (God's Word Written) and in the Person of Jesus Christ (God's Word in the Flesh) as seen in John's Gospel, Chapter 1.

Rhema

ATI:
The second primary Greek word that describes Scripture is rhema, which refers to a word that is spoken and means “an utterance.” A rhema is a verse or portion of Scripture that the Holy Spirit brings to our attention with application to a current situation or need for direction. How do I “get” a rhema? In the regular course of our daily reading of God’s Word (logos), we need to ask God to speak to us through His Word and give us insight into it. The Holy Spirit can cause certain passages to stand out with significant meaning or application for our lives. These are the rhemas of Scripture and should become a part of our daily thoughts and actions.

Shelley Quinn:
The word rhema implies a single item—a specific word spoken by God with an applied purpose, a word of God that has a practical and immediate function. A personal word of instruction from God is a “rhema” Word. For example, when Jesus told Simon to launch into the deep and cast out his fishing nets, he replied, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word [rhema] I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5 NKJV).

Wikipedia on the Pentecostal view:
Pentecostal Christians view Rhema as the voice of the Holy Spirit as it speaks to the believer at the present moment. In this sense, the Christian should be guided by the Holy Spirit as he/she is guided through inner feelings, impressions and experiences. God's Rhema, the direct words of God to the individual, can also be imparted through the words of others, such as a preacher in a worship service, or a friend who counsels them. In this sense, God's direct guidance can be determined by a variety of means. The test of the authenticity of a Rhema from God is simple... How does it compare to the whole of Scripture? Orthodoxy says that God will not speak a word that contradicts His written word, the Scriptures, so there is a built-in safeguard to prevent misinterpretation....

The Holy Spirit often uses passages in the Logos of God to create specific guidance, Rhema, for the individual. An example of the Rhema of God is to consider how several different people can read the same passage of Scripture and each sees something different. This occurs because each person is in a different place spiritually in their individual lives so God's word to each of them in that moment of their lives is different - specific to their needs. The Logos (God's original meaning and intention) has not changed, but the Holy Spirit has used it to speak to each according to his or her needs.

I've bolded the parts I found interesting.

[Ian]

Ian:
What do you mean by "putting it in my own words"? Like what? Can you remember a example?

As far as "repeating it over and over for hours each day"?or "feelings"? or "Having the "rhema" makes you a prophet."? I'm sorry. I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't in your first post either.

I realize you no longer have the book, but the things you are saying are not in the book I am looking at, at least not that I can find. I haven't ever heard anything like that in any of the programs referred to either? That is why it would be helpful if you did have some quotes and specific examples.

Maybe you are talking about, or thinking of another book?

I don't know what else to say.

There is clearly something amiss here.

What is the book you are looking at? Can you post a picture of the cover?

It is exactly as PeacefulBe just posted it in post #65.

Thanks. Just as I thought... it is the latest version. I had her first version of the workbook, with a different cover.

Will be back later to possibly add to this posting.

In the later chapters of the old book I had, she was teaching that in rhema affirmations you take scriptures pertaining to what you wish to receive from God, put them into your own words, and repeat them over and over again for hours each day until "something happens", which could take months. There were pages listing examples of specific prayers, such as "salvation", "health", etc., and the Bible texts used.

I still do not know what to say here exactly, mostly because I do not want to cause offense, but things still don't add up here. I don't wish to sound like I am accusing you of lying or deceiving, because I AM NOT.

Is it possible you are mistaken about which book taught and said what you claim "Exalting the word" does? or is it possible you are remembering what others have said about the book and Shelley Quinn, rather then what you actually read?

I ask that because I can't find these things in her book, you are unable to quote anything, and no one else has quoted anything here which sounds anything like what you specifically claimed she was teaching either..


You also say the book you were referring to had another cover, but "Exalting the Word" was copyrighted and published in 2006 by Pacific Press Publishing. The cover design and photo are by Steve Nelson. It is not revised nor edited, and to the best of my knowledge there is only the one version. **Every reference to, and copy of the book which I found is the same, and they all had 176 pages.

I looked all over the internet, but could find nothing about any other version and no other cover....

Maybe you or another might have more success..

to FHB...

I need to tell you, and the others here, that you won't find in Shelley's book the exact words I used in describing its message in my first post in this thread. Since I no longer have the book, I can't give you the "exact" wording which led me to put my thoughts about it into such few words as I have.

I didn't come up with that "boiled-down bottom line" until months had passed; and I had read sister's account (which I really really wish she would continue), plus having my first conversation about this at Maritime forum with watchbird last year.

**edited to add sentence in bold font

This post has been edited by Ian: Sep 24 2007, 04:53 AM