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

[PeacefulBe]

ok, one more time...

the book i had was sent me in 2005, so obviously it is NOT the one printed in 2006.
so the "best of your knowledge" is not...

and please stop trying to imply i don't know what i'm talking about... all liars will be outside the city; and since i'm planning to be with Jesus thru all eternity, it isn't worth my time to make stuff up...

i'm searching the 'net for a copy of what i had...

it may take awhile.

in the mean time, will you please stop the uncalled-for remarks about what i KNOW i read in my copy.
thank you.

roxe,

If you carefully read the statement by Ian that you are responding to here, you will see that he was not calling you a liar, only that he could not find an earlier copy of the book and didn't personally know if there was one. Try not to bristle as we work together towards understanding.

[RBF]

RFB,

How was the consensus in the following example reached?
Acts 15

How was the consensus in the following example reached?

What is the consensus of the brethren in Acts 15? (I will assume that the following is the consensus that you are referring to. If I am incorrect, let me know!)

28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

Notice it does not equate the Holy Spirit with themselves. That would be blasphemous. Also, if they were all filled with the Spirit, why would there be dissension? The Holy Spirit brings unity when He comes. (Acts 2:1)

Judas and Silas were among them. According to verse thirty-two, these two men were prophets. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21. God does speak directly through prophets but reading and claiming does not make one a prophet. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” 1 John 4:1,2.

Throughout Acts 15 I see reference to the Word of God in many different ways. These men were not independent of the Word but seeking common ground through the Word. Thusly, I cannot assume that I am correct without relying on the Inspired Word to guide my understandings. Have you ever given a Bible Study and had the individual say, “Well, the Spirit told me that wasn’t right?” If our “spirits are disagreeing,” that is a sure sign that we should head back to the Scriptures. Our personal spirit must not have preeminence over the Word of God. This seems to be more prevalent today than ten years ago. This is dangerous!

I am an interpreter. So, go figure that I analyze implied meaning behind words. What do you (plural ) think of the following examples.

Tired: worn out, exhausted, spent, whipped, beat, done in, trashed….

Rhema: Word, impression, thought, voice, expression, inner feelings, experiences.

The words for Rhema were words that I culled through on this thread. They are your words! No pun intended….

RBF

[västergötland]

Or could it be that the Rhema Pentecostals that wrote this were caricaturing the Evangelical view of both the functions of the Holy Spirit and the written word of God... and thus you are not actually seeing the true difference between the two views? Obviously, I think this is the case.

So what is the right picture of the Evangelical view then? Write down your own definition.

[Ian]

The question I have concerning the wikipedia article is that it lets the pentecostal worldview make the definitions which are then applied to the evangelical explanation.

I too question the Pentecostal explanation of the evangelical view, (just as I would, and do when the position is reversed) I think it lacking. In my opinion, the link which Grandmad posted is a much better explanation of the evangelical view. It's here:
http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema/

I thought the wikipedia article only of value as it clarified that there is a distinct difference in the 2 views according to the Pentecostals. I also thought it of merit as the explanation of what Pentecostals believe rhema is came from the pentecostal belief system, and viewpoint.

This post has been edited by Ian: Sep 24 2007, 05:35 AM

[Ian]

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.

I disagree with this conclusion. The bible does not teach this about rhema. None of the definitions or explanations of Rhema posted here say this, and although Roxe has posted several times here that Shelley Quinn wrote and taught this, we have yet to find a quote or reference where she does so.

[LaurenceD]

That is so good, Ian! You're starting to sound like us--asking for verification. Careful.

Someone's surely going to come along and ask a lot of question about evidence, and so many other claims, like where it says in the Bible that it's okay to (re)marry in spite of fornication (defined according to Christ--even looking lustfully at someone) which means we're all free to divorce since we've all sinned and come short of the glory of God--even in spite of not wanting to admit it, right? Judging or manufacturing evidence that our spouse has committed spiritual adultry--like who would ever know, right? We don't always have to back up our claims, do we?

No double mindedness around here!

[LaurenceD]

"How was the consensus in the following example reached?"

"Also, if they were all filled with the Spirit, why would there be dissension? The Holy Spirit brings unity when He comes. (Acts 2:1)"

"If our “spirits are disagreeing,” that is a sure sign that we should head back to the Scriptures.

What do you think of this?

"We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement.” (MS 24, 1892; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials 3:1092-93)

You also said...

I am an interpreter. So, go figure that I analyze implied meaning behind words. What do you (plural ) think of the following examples.

Tired: worn out, exhausted, spent, whipped, beat, done in, trashed….

Rhema: Word, impression, thought, voice, expression, inner feelings, experiences.

The words for Rhema were words that I culled through on this thread. They are your words! No pun intended….

Good one!

[SoulEspresso]

I too question the Pentecostal explanation of the evangelical view, (just as I would, and do when the position is reversed) I think it lacking. In my opinion, the link which Grandmad posted is a much better explanation of the evangelical view. It's here:
http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema/

WAIT ... am I wrong? Isn't that a Word of Faith website writing from that school of the Pentecostal movement, using their definitions--not evangelical?

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Sep 24 2007, 06:28 AM

[LaurenceD]

But we're trying to leave ad hominem attacks behind. Please help us with that.

Good post!

I'm not sure some understand the principle though. This doesn't mean we can't scrutinize, question, or criticize, someone who has published something, or is out in the public preaching and teaching so-called "truth" on a subject.

Plus, it doesn't mean someone here should be exempt. I don't mind it at all if someone jumps track and gets personal and negative with me. It doesn't deter me in the least. In fact, I appreciate it. It tells me a lot when someone has reached the end of their logical rope and has no other place to turn. As we all know, the real purpose of demonizing people is to divert attention from their arguments, and discredit them personally by ad hominem attacks.

As they say, the sleep of reason breeds demons. But also, demonization breeds the sleep of reason.

[watchbird]

I too question the Pentecostal explanation of the evangelical view, (just as I would, and do when the position is reversed) I think it lacking. In my opinion, the link which Grandmad posted is a much better explanation of the evangelical view. It's here:
http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema/

I thought the wikipedia article only of value as it clarified that there is a distinct difference in the 2 views according to the Pentecostals. I also thought it of merit as the explanation of what Pentecostals believe rhema is came from the pentecostal belief system, and viewpoint.

ATI is also both Pentecostal and Word/Faith. Check out the persons involved and who they recommend and you will see that Bill Gothard (ATI) is considered part of the Word/Faith Movement.
To finda truly Evangelical statement of their own beliefs, you will have to look among the Christian apoligetic literature or the Ministries to cults and New Religions reports.

You will also find that not all Pentacostal groups are Rhema groups. the wiki article was obviously written by a Rhema group.

[watchbird]

WAIT ... am I wrong? Isn't that a Word of Faith website writing from that school of the Pentecostal movement, using their definitions--not evangelical?

You are absolutely correct, Soul. Now if you would just go the next "mile" and find the true 'ol time Pentecostals and the true Evangelicals and bring us THEIR comments on Rhema.... we would have some solid material to compare with what we have seen so far.

[SoulEspresso]

When you read the Christian apologists on the topic you will know that this is not just a Greek word .... but a whole set of doctrines... and they are based on a very specific and "alternate" view of reality.

This is a critical point. Rhema and logos are hugely common words in the NT, and synonymous. Nobody besides Word-of-Faith believers even uses the word in a distinctive way, which ought to give us pause. I'm not saying Ms. Quinn is incorrect in her view because I don't have the book yet, but using rhema at all in this way indicates she's been influenced by this line of thought in the Church.

As far as Thomas's earlier question of how a consensus was reached in Acts 15, I think we all could stand to revisit that story. I have a minor disagreement with RBF on this one ... I think the consensus would have been very hard to reach with Bible study alone; the fact that Judas and Silas were prophets wasn't mentioned in the text until after consensus was already reached. Instead, the consensus was reached through Bible study (not proof-texting, as the passage they considered did not cover the requirements they laid on the Gentiles!), and discussion of God's current activities (giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles).

Adventists have traditionally downplayed the authority of the church in determining truth. On one hand this makes sense because we started out very anti-tradition -- and appropriately so. On the other, it doesn't make sense because we reached a new consensus and look very hard askance at people looking to move "the pillars." But group consensus, led by the Holy Spirit, is pretty important; it protects us from the lunatic fringe and keeps us in Bible study.

Like right now, on rhema. Isn't Bible study more fun than taking shots at each other?

[Ian]

WAIT ... am I wrong? Isn't that a Word of Faith website writing from that school of the Pentecostal movement, using their definitions--not evangelical?

The link above is to the Institute of Basic life principles, founded by Bill Gothard, and while I do not agree with all that he teaches, he accepted Christ at a evangelical outreach program, trained at Wheaton and a Baptist seminary and is a Evangelical.

This is his definition and explanation of rhema on his website.
http://billgothard.com/bill/teaching/rhemas/

an excerpt:
"Rhemas are not separate from Scripture, but a part of the whole of God’s Word. Every word of God is inspired, and “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16). It is the Holy Spirit Who illuminates particular Scriptures for application in a daily walk with the Lord."

[watchbird]

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

You've done very well, Willow. Keep thinking.... and extend your area of information gathering to some of the search criteria that I've mentioned. Find out what other Christians who are not part of the Rhema groups think about those groups and their use of the "word"... both scripture and the word Rhema itself.

I'm also glad you brought in the phrase, "name it and claim it". That also is a technical "term" when it comes to identifying these groups. And generally speaking, I would say that they lay somewhere between Word/Faith and Evangelicalism. At least the "name it and claim it" groups do not all use "Rhema" in any significant way.... and much of their doctrine seems more in line with regular Christian beliefs than does that of the Rhema groups. So keep looking ... you'll find things that are significant to our discovery process.

I disagree with this conclusion. The bible does not teach this about rhema. None of the definitions or explanations of Rhema posted here say this, and although Roxe has posted several times here that Shelley Quinn wrote and taught this, we have yet to find a quote or reference where she does so.

Please note, Ian, that none of us who are engaging in this discussion have an actual book to examine yet, and it has not been a long enough time for us who are purchasing one to have received ours. And anyhow... the first step is to learn what Rhema really is.... and as you have noted so far all we have are definitions from those who are either "main-line" Rhema group, or closely connected to those groups.

So I agree with you when you say that the Bible does not teach this about rhema (the Greek word in its native habitat... scripture), and the definitions from those that give particular meaning to the word Rhema do not include this in their basic definition of the word. But.... we do not yet know how others outside the Rhema Movement evaluate the significance the Rhema groups give to the word... and we have not yet probed beyond the definition itself to see how the Rhema groups apply this in real life.

And since the comments Willow made were about how the Rhema USE the concepts they include in their definition.... we aren't in a position to decide whether what she concluded is correct or not.

This much I can say for sure..... what she stated IS definitely true of all of the "name it and claim it" groups that I am familiar with... some of which do and some which do not use the term "Rhema".

[watchbird]

This is a critical point. Rhema and logos are hugely common words in the NT, and synonymous. Nobody besides Word-of-Faith believers even uses the word in a distinctive way, which ought to give us pause. I'm not saying Ms. Quinn is incorrect in her view because I don't have the book yet, but using rhema at all in this way indicates she's been influenced by this line of thought in the Church.

Thanks, Soul. Now if you will just favor us with some statements from some of these other "nobody" spokespersons... as to what they think of those who make this difference.... then we will have a good basis for comparison of views.

The link above is to the Institute of Basic life principles, founded by Bill Gothard, and while I do not agree with all that he teaches, he accepted Christ at a evangelical outreach program, trained at Wheaton and a Baptist seminary and is a Evangelical.

This is his definition and explanation of rhema on his website.
http://billgothard.com/bill/teaching/rhemas/

an excerpt:
"Rhemas are not separate from Scripture, but a part of the whole of God’s Word. Every word of God is inspired, and “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16). It is the Holy Spirit Who illuminates particular Scriptures for application in a daily walk with the Lord."

You are correct. And what this illustrates is that Rhema and Word/Faith teachings are not confined to the Rhema Institute and those who openly claim to be Word/Faith or Rhema affiliates.

Again I invite you to look at the evaluation of other Baptists and Evangelicals to find what they think of Bill Gothard in particular and of Rhema, Word/Faith, and other such groups.