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

[fallible humanbe...]

LD,

This is commonly known as withholding judgment until all the facts are in . . . it doesn't insinuate doubt, rather a reasoned approach to a discussion.

You: "Now lest this spin out of control and become fact, when it is evident that at this point it can in NO way be considered such..."

Me: give us your specific reason for doubting roxe's first hand account as being factual.

PB,

Thanks for the comments . . . the first step in this would be to come to a common understanding of the word rhema and its usage in the NT. That would include the connections between logos and rhema and the ways in which the writers of scripture used them. This would be followed by a review of the actual words of Ms. Quinn to discover if there is a connection between her usage and teaching with the Pentecostal view or if it is in line with Ian's comments. It isn't a sound bite process but one that requires work on each side to leave behind proprietary positions and not try and come to the table to compromise but rather to come to the table and discover together (this, I feel, is sorely missing here).

In all fairness it would include Ms. Quinn herself and all would allow her the space and freedom to speak her position - without judgment, without condescension, without jumping to conclusions. I can see here (in some, certainly not all) the desire for there to be false teaching going on so that a dog pile can ensue. This has to be avoided - not just in action, but by statement that it will be avoided, by all involved in a reasoned look at this issue.

There is no need to make Ms. Quinn wrong . . . what is gained by this? There is no need to prove she is wrong . . . what is gained by this? What is needed is a fair look at this to see that (hopefully) what is being presented to the seekers of the world via 3ABN is indeed what God would have them know. The only reason for a goal of making her wrong is personal vendetta and that isn't productive here is it?

Let's see what we can do.

- FHB

[PeacefulBe]

You: "Now lest this spin out of control and become fact, when it is evident that at this point it can in NO way be considered such..."

Me: give us your specific reason for doubting roxe's first hand account as being factual.

LaurenceD, what springs to mind here is can a point of view be a considered a fact?

point' of view'

1. a specified or stated manner of consideration or appraisal; standpoint: from the point of view of a doctor.
2. an opinion, attitude, or judgment: He refuses to change his point of view in the matter.
3. the position of the narrator in relation to the story, as indicated by the narrator's outlook from which the events are depicted and by the attitude toward the characters.

fac·tu·al

ADJECTIVE:

Of the nature of fact; real.
Of or containing facts.


We need to ascertain what the facts are about Shelly Quinn's teaching on rhema and logos and then we can compare these with roxe's report of her first hand experience, IMO.

[västergötland]

And yes, I agree with Fallible to this extent.... this IS something that should be studied and understood by every Adventist who wishes to escape the deceptions of the last days.... for how can one recognize something in disguise unless one understands it when it is openly proclaiming itself. There IS a time to study and understand false doctrine... for how can one recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing if one has no idea what a wolf looks like?

By knowing what a sheep looks like?

[Clay]

there is info about word of faith practices in a thread that I started some time ago in the theology section.... it faded from sight due to lack of interest I suspect... I may hunt it up and link ya....

[princessdi]

My concern is as it always is with Adventist being involved in areas of praise, worship, spiritual warfare, speaking in tongues, rhema, etc. which they don't understand. IOW, just imitating others. I am well aware, WB, of you long standing concern over the "penecostal" influences at 3ABN. We have discussed it. I was abit confused over your concern. It was explained to me the difference yet again between the races(for lack of a better word) in this area. That within the caucasian churches taking a a new age kind of edge to them.

My concern also lies within the fact that Danny maybe getting messages which tickle his ears, in that he really wants to be powerful, etc. I am concerned because he has, indeed, achieved a kind of prophet status with even those who defend him here. No matter what the wrong, it's ok, becuase it is Danny, and the attitude that some would even bother to question him. Somebody besides Danny is believing the hype. Now if Shelly and the Steenson want to take over 3ABN and make it TBN2 that is between them and Danny. However, in light of the deeclaration and confusion over 3ABN's allegiance to the church, I think a clear declaration needs to be made. ON AIR, since they address everything else we discuss here. If they wanto be Advnetist, then be that. If they wan to be anything else, be that. If they want to mix two or three , they should still declare thathtye are nolonger a supporting ministry of the SDA church, and begin to proactice their own[biblical] doctrine.
Those are my concerns.

Very interesting reactions from Di and Sybil. As a matter of fact, these things HAVE been said here before... but obviously not in a way that caught your attention.

But in fact... these are the things that Sister presented very early on in her first person observed though "unauthorized" history of 3abn. If you will go back and read her posts having to do with the "garden" and how she described the things Mollie and Shelly taught Danny and others at 3abn.

These are the things that I kept trying to present... but only under the term "Pentecostalism".... which usually got us sidetracked off into a defense of whatever brand of Pentecostalism the "defenders" held dear to their hearts. Only after I read a post by Di some weeks ago in which she made a clear distinction between Word of Faith and Pentecostalism did I realize that I was using the wrong terminology in my attempts to communicate. In my defense, Word of Faith is generally considered a variety of Pentecostalism. But that is really no excuse since I also was well aware of the distinction.

And while I am not sure where it is, it is also true that Roxe told her story here before also. And it was from her that I realized that the word Rhema was actually being used. Up until that time, I recognized the doctrines (and the worldview level beliefs that undergird them) from the things that Shelly presented on the few 3abn programs that I watched, but I had not been aware of her actually teaching Rhema by that name. Usually when those beliefs and practices are taught by Adventists, they are much more carefully disguised and not labelled so clearly.

At any rate, I am glad that this has finally caught the attention of at least some of you.

And yes, I agree with Fallible to this extent.... this IS something that should be studied and understood by every Adventist who wishes to escape the deceptions of the last days.... for how can one recognize something in disguise unless one understands it when it is openly proclaiming itself. There IS a time to study and understand false doctrine... for how can one recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing if one has no idea what a wolf looks like?

[LaurenceD]

This is commonly known as withholding judgment until all the facts are in . . . it doesn't insinuate doubt, rather a reasoned approach to a discussion.

Commonly, perhaps, but it has no such appearance in this case.

It may be helpful to review your post more fully, to see why you've given the full appearance of doubting something in roxe's account.

Now lest this spin out of control and become fact, when it is evident that at this point it can in NO way be considered such, will you provide a source for such a claim? It has happened far too often here (and other places like here) that someone makes a statement like the one below and withing 24 hours it is quoted as fact.

Lest what become "fact?"

For what "claim?"

"It?" What specifically are you referring to?

Which "statement like the one below?"

As you can see, something in roxe's account obviously gave you cause to doubt. What, specifically, was that reason? What part of roxe's account might you disagree with as being true?

[watchbird]

Thanks for the comments . . . the first step in this would be to come to a common understanding of the word rhema and its usage in the NT. That would include the connections between logos and rhema and the ways in which the writers of scripture used them.

Since only Pentecostal/Word of Faith segments of Christianity make the distinctions you describe above, I disagree that this would be a "first step". IOW, there is no "common understanding" of these "distinctions in scripture". Only those who load significance onto the distinctions make the distinctions.

So if this were to be the first step, it would have to include a full presentation of the ways different segments of the Christian world view the use of these words.

This would be followed by a review of the actual words of Ms. Quinn

I would suggest that this would be a very good "first step". And since you seem to be taking a position that says that Ms. Quinn is NOT using the word in line with Pentacostal usage, then it would seem as though you would be the best person to give us the actual explanations and wordings that she uses in her directions for obtaining and using "rhema" in one's lives.

I assume that you have... or could easily get... a copy of her book which Roxe has mentioned. Also I assume that you are have or could easily get, the various DVDs that give her view on Rhema.... and that you could obtain permission to transcribe significant portions and bring them here for our study. I see the Exalting His Word DVDs advertised on the 3abn store website. There are four which mention Rhema in the title.... I suppose those would be the place to start, though quite possibly the concept was introduced previous to the first of those four, since they are quite far down in the list of titles. These titles are, "Rhema Affirmations", and "The Benefits of Rhema, Pt. 1, 2, and 3". I look forward to seeing significant quotes from these so we can examine them together.

to discover if there is a connection between her usage and teaching with the Pentecostal view or if it is in line with Ian's comments. It isn't a sound bite process but one that requires work on each side to leave behind proprietary positions and not try and come to the table to compromise but rather to come to the table and discover together (this, I feel, is sorely missing here).

In all fairness it would include Ms. Quinn herself and all would allow her the space and freedom to speak her position - without judgment, without condescension, without jumping to conclusions.

I think this would be an ideal situation. Once we have looked together at what she has published on this, then it would be most helpful if she would come on ... under her own name, of course.... and respond to questions which have come up, or explain places where she might think we have misunderstood her.

There is no need to make Ms. Quinn wrong . . . what is gained by this? There is no need to prove she is wrong . . . what is gained by this? What is needed is a fair look at this to see that (hopefully) what is being presented to the seekers of the world via 3ABN is indeed what God would have them know. The only reason for a goal of making her wrong is personal vendetta and that isn't productive here is it?

There is no way that anyone can "make Ms. Quinn wrong". She is what she is... and what she teaches is either right or wrong or some mixture of both. We can find out which we think that is.... but it is unhelpful to assume that anyone has a goal of "making her wrong". The goal of everyone here that I know is to learn what is right and what is wrong and to teach others how to discern for themselves.

Let's see what we can do.

- FHB

I'll be glad for you to lead the way in bringing actual quotes for us to examine together.

[LaurenceD]

LaurenceD, what springs to mind here is can a point of view be a considered a fact?
We need to ascertain what the facts are about Shelly Quinn's teaching on rhema and logos and then we can compare these with roxe's report of her first hand experience, IMO.

IOW, give the accountant the benefit of the doubt until such time as one can produce evidence to the contrary?

I'd agree with that.

Perhaps FHB will provide that evidence. And, it helps to recognize that doubt must certainly be a prerequisite to going on that kind of hunt.

[Skyhook]

LD,



There is no need to make Ms. Quinn wrong . . . what is gained by this? There is no need to prove she is wrong . . . what is gained by this? What is needed is a fair look at this to see that (hopefully) what is being presented to the seekers of the world via 3ABN is indeed what God would have them know. The only reason for a goal of making her wrong is personal vendetta and that isn't productive here is it?

Let's see what we can do.

- FHB

FHB, either she is believing and teaching error as if it is from God, or her book and the personal exchanges with others have been misunderstood, or deliberately distorted in order to "make her wrong." It would seem to me that the last possibility would be the most unlikely.
If she is teaching mistaken beliefs and it that becomes clear, it is not a matter of "making her wrong," it is a matter of exposing the teaching as dangerous falsehood. How Ms. Quinn feels about that exposure would be entirely up to her.

IMHO this is a more serious matter than the divorce, as bad as that appears to be. The concern here is about an unholy influence being brought into a ministry that has been to a large degree preaching the Seventh-day Adventist message--the everlasting gospel around the world, in spite of the many problems, which are enough without bringing in something that smacks of Pentecostalism and the other Charismatics and even the occult.

[PeacefulBe]

FHB, either she is believing and teaching error as if it is from God, or her book and the personal exchanges with others have been misunderstood, or deliberately distorted in order to "make her wrong." It would seem to me that the last possibility would be the most unlikely.
If she is teaching mistaken beliefs and it that becomes clear, it is not a matter of "making her wrong," it is a matter of exposing the teaching as dangerous falsehood. How Ms. Quinn feels about that exposure would be entirely up to her.

IMHO this is a more serious matter than the divorce, as bad as that appears to be. The concern here is about an unholy influence being brought into a ministry that has been to a large degree preaching the Seventh-day Adventist message--the everlasting gospel around the world, in spite of the many problems, which are enough without bringing in something that smacks of Pentecostalism and the other Charismatics and even the occult.

And putting our various minds together and cooperating in seeking and discerning what is fact in this regard has the potential to be an amazing exercise for us as a group.

[LaurenceD]

The concern here is about an unholy influence being brought into a ministry that has been to a large degree preaching the Seventh-day Adventist message--the everlasting gospel around the world, in spite of the many problems, which are enough without bringing in something that smacks of Pentecostalism and the other Charismatics and even the occult.

Here's a related quote I just happened to recall (EW p.55)

Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, "My Father, give us Thy Spirit." Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and much love, joy, and peace.

I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father, give us Thy Spirit." Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan's object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God's children.

[PeacefulBe]

IOW, give the accountant the benefit of the doubt until such time as one can produce evidence to the contrary?

I'd agree with that.

Perhaps FHB will provide that evidence. And, it helps to recognize that doubt must certainly be a prerequisite to going on that kind of hunt.

Does it really necessitate doubt as a prerequisite? This is what the FreeOnlineDictionary list of definitions of doubt are:

doubt (dout)
v. doubt·ed, doubt·ing, doubts
v.tr.
1. To be undecided or skeptical about: began to doubt some accepted doctrines.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust: doubts politicians when they make sweeping statements.
3. To regard as unlikely: I doubt that we'll arrive on time.
4. Archaic To suspect; fear.
v.intr.
To be undecided or skeptical.
n.
1. A lack of certainty that often leads to irresolution. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. A lack of trust.
3. A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: reassured me by answering my doubts.
4. The condition of being unsettled or unresolved: an outcome still in doubt.

It does seem like a rather negative base for the beginning of a search for fact. I can, however, see a need for a certain amount of skepticism, not to start the search with a preconceived notion about what the end result will be. How about approaching it with a mind open to discerning what meets the standards of logic and truth? Both would work, I suppose.

[fallible humanbe...]

I would suggest that this would be a very good "first step". And since you seem to be taking a position that says that Ms. Quinn is NOT using the word in line with Pentacostal usage, then it would seem as though you would be the best person to give us the actual explanations and wordings that she uses in her directions for obtaining and using "rhema" in one's lives.

I assume that you have... or could easily get... a copy of her book which Roxe has mentioned. Also I assume that you are have or could easily get, the various DVDs that give her view on Rhema.... and that you could obtain permission to transcribe significant portions and bring them here for our study. I see the Exalting His Word DVDs advertised on the 3abn store website. There are four which mention Rhema in the title.... I suppose those would be the place to start, though quite possibly the concept was introduced previous to the first of those four, since they are quite far down in the list of titles. These titles are, "Rhema Affirmations", and "The Benefits of Rhema, Pt. 1, 2, and 3". I look forward to seeing significant quotes from these so we can examine them together.

I think this would be an ideal situation. Once we have looked together at what she has published on this, then it would be most helpful if she would come on ... under her own name, of course.... and respond to questions which have come up, or explain places where she might think we have misunderstood her.
There is no way that anyone can "make Ms. Quinn wrong". She is what she is... and what she teaches is either right or wrong or some mixture of both. We can find out which we think that is.... but it is unhelpful to assume that anyone has a goal of "making her wrong". The goal of everyone here that I know is to learn what is right and what is wrong and to teach others how to discern for themselves.
I'll be glad for you to lead the way in bringing actual quotes for us to examine together.

I did not bring this to the table. Roxe expressed concern - the onus is on her to put out there for review and discussion those things that concern her. I don't know what she read or heard that concerns her. It is very convenient for you to try and turn this around and place it on me - but as they say - its not working.

My access to Ms. Quinn's writing and presentations is no more or less than anyone else's.

I also disagree with your claim that reviewing Ms. Quinn's work is the first step. If we are to look at this reasonably then we DO have to come to a common understanding, definition of terms, and language for discussion. Dialogue is a complex animal and isn't, as I said before a sound bite proposition. If we are going to discuss this then you need to share how you view, not only the Pentecostal, but Christian view of the words logos and rhema and others in turn need to share this and discuss this until we come to something we can work with. Your rush to judge Ms. Quinn's work would be putting the cart before the horse. Again - this is a process that takes time, if you are anxious to point out how she is "wrong" then go ahead, I am looking to discuss this with others who are first interested in looking at what is said an known about the issue and then moving on to look at Ms. Quinn's words.

- FHB

[Clay]

here is the thread that examines Word of Faith concepts....

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6919

a review may be in order...

[Observer]

I also disagree with your claim that reviewing Ms. Quinn's work is the first step. If we are to look at this reasonably then we DO have to come to a common understanding, definition of terms, and language for discussion.

- FHB

In the context of our discussion there are two important tasks that must be acomplished in a literary analysis of another's work.

One will be to seek to determine the meaning of the considered word, as used by the author.

Another may be to determine the meaning of the work in the social context of the time in which it was written.

On a personal basis, I prefer to begin with a searach for the meaning as used by the author, and then go to the common meaning. But, I will suggest that it is not of major importance which is doen first, as long as both are done. Both, in my mind, are important, and I would not require one to be done before the other.


As what is meant by the word in this current discussion, I do not know. I have not studied eilther context enough to know.

NOTE: Yes, I know that a literary analysis there are other steps that should be taken. My comment is confined to the narrow question raised here.