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

[SoulEspresso]

Ah! I see you were looking at it. Keep going.

The best thing to do is to go beyond looking merely at how the words are translated, but how the Bible writers use both logos and rhema in context. Time consuming but I bet the payoff will be worth it.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Sep 25 2007, 09:49 AM

[Ian]

I don't have the book. I have to work with the online excerpts. IOW I can't provide a quote
If it's important to you, I think you should replicate vastergotland's research for yourself and see how the Bible uses the words--not how external authors, Ms. Quinn or anyone else or even Bible dictionaries, define the words. (This is important because even Kittel's encyclopedic dictionary has mistakes in it; none are infallible; and some dictionaries have agendas.) Take Strong's or the websites he mentioned; look at how the Bible uses each of the words. It will take awhile because they're quite common, but maybe you'll at least see what some of us are saying whether or not you choose to agree.

Please take this in a spirit of encouragement. I've posted this in repetitive fashion for clarity's sake, not because I'm upset or anything.

It doesn't bother me if you repeat yourself. I do think it's important to search and study everything we hear being taught. Part of that for me is always using Strong's to find the underlying greek and Hebrew, the meanings and usuage and how translated.

Truthfully, when I first watched "Exalting His word" and heard her talking about Rhema and Logos, I thought it a bit weird myself..

So I did a study on all of it for myself. Her later programs seemed to be in accord with what I found in my own studies.

[Ian]

-----Original Message-----
From: ... [mailto:....net]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:55 AM
To: info@iblp.org
Subject: Seeking info on Rhema and your affiliations

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am taking part in a internet discussion group where we are trying to
determine the biblical definition and iimportance of "rhema", and the
difference between the Pentecostal and Evangelical interpretation and
understanding, and also which is truth and which is error.

It is my hope and prayer that you can assist myself and others to find a
correct understanding by answering some questions we have.

Your website and link here:
<http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema/>
were cited as an example of the Pentecostal/Charismatic teaching and understanding of the
word "Rhema".

Is this correct?

It was also claimed that you are part of the "word of faith" movement.

Is this correct?


The page on your site lists scriptures which are very helpful in
determining if this is biblical but there seems to be some confusion as
to which group you are more closely aligned with in your understanding
and explanation of rhema.

Are your views and interpretation of the Greek word Rhema, Pentecostal,
or the same as the Pentecostal view?
...

Thank you in advance for your time and your assistance.

In His Amazing Grace,
...

===========================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "MGA" <mga@iblp.org>
To: ....
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking info on Rhema and your affiliations


Dear ...


Just a quick note in response to your email. I have not studied the
teachings of those various groups on the matter of "rhemas". I suspect that some
use the word "rhema" to describe extra biblical revelation. This would be
totally contrary to what I teach.

A "rhema" is God opening our eyes of understanding to what has already been
written in scripture. For example, Jesus taught his disciples about His
coming death, burial and resurrection (logos). But it was only after His
resurrection that He opened the scriptures and revealed what He had spoken
to them about (rhemas). The result was their heart burned within them
(Luke 24:32).

It trust this will answer the questions that have been raised.

Through Christ our Lord,

Bill Gothard

This post has been edited by Ian: Sep 25 2007, 10:30 AM

[awesumtenor]

It doesn't bother me if you repeat yourself. I do think it's important to search and study everything we hear being taught. Part of that for me is always using Strong's to find the underlying greek and Hebrew, the meanings and usuage and how translated.

Truthfully, when I first watched "Exalting His word" and heard her talking about Rhema and Logos, I thought it a bit weird myself..

So I did a study on all of it for myself. Her later programs seemed to be in accord with what I found in my own studies.

Your own studies can still lead you to errant doctrine... so her seeming to be in accord with your own studies does not guarantee that either she...or you... is, in fact correct... A brother once asked EGW "Sister White, do you think we must understand the truth for ourselves? Why can we not take the truths that others have gathered together, and believe them because they have investigated the subjects, and then we shall be free to go on without the taxing of the powers of the mind in the investigation of all these subjects? Do you not think that these men who have brought out the truth in the past were inspired of God?" Ellen White's response to this question was as follows:

"I dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into all truth; but when it comes to inspiration in the fullest sense of the word, I answer, No. I believe that God has given them a work to do, but if they are not fully consecrated to God at all times, they will weave self and their peculiar traits of character into what they are doing, and will put their mold upon the work, and fashion men in religious experience after their own pattern. It is dangerous for us to make flesh our arm. We should lean upon the arm of Infinite Power. God has been revealing this to us for years. We must have living faith in our hearts and reach out for larger knowledge and more advanced light."--Review and Herald, March 25, 1890

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ian]

Your own studies can still lead you to errant doctrine... so her seeming to be in accord with your own studies does not guarantee that either she...or you... is, in fact correct... A brother once asked EGW "Sister White, do you think we must understand the truth for ourselves? Why can we not take the truths that others have gathered together, and believe them because they have investigated the subjects, and then we shall be free to go on without the taxing of the powers of the mind in the investigation of all these subjects? Do you not think that these men who have brought out the truth in the past were inspired of God?" Ellen White's response to this question was as follows:

"I dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into all truth; but when it comes to inspiration in the fullest sense of the word, I answer, No. I believe that God has given them a work to do, but if they are not fully consecrated to God at all times, they will weave self and their peculiar traits of character into what they are doing, and will put their mold upon the work, and fashion men in religious experience after their own pattern. It is dangerous for us to make flesh our arm. We should lean upon the arm of Infinite Power. God has been revealing this to us for years. We must have living faith in our hearts and reach out for larger knowledge and more advanced light."--Review and Herald, March 25, 1890

In His service,
Mr. J

The best defense against error, is truth.

If I am wrong in anything I say or believe here, it can be proven.

If you do so I will listen and consider what you say.

But posting this kind of thing to discredit me is really not helpful to any if you can not do that.

It doesn't mean anything, nor do I believe it is "In His Service"

This post has been edited by Ian: Sep 25 2007, 10:52 AM

[LaurenceD]

In case you missed the connection, the reason I posted the definition of "affirmation" on the previous page is because of something roxe said in post #4...

...you take an hour each day saying these prayers over and over for as many months required to receive the "answer" from God;

You DEMAND that God does just as you keep saying over and over each day.

If this is actually the case, it would help us narrow down several things about Quinn's sources and her approch towards what she calls rhema and scriptural "affirmation."

...from wikipedia....

New Thought Affirmations In New Thought and personal development, an affirmation is a form of autosuggestion in which a statement of a desirable intention or condition of the world or the mind is deliberately meditated on and/or repeated in order to implant it in the mind...They appear to be most effective when repeated in a quiet and restful state of mind and body, and when the desired outcome is vividly experienced in one's mind and resulting emotions are felt.

AutosuggestionAutosuggestion can be seen as an aspect of prayer, self-exhorting "pep talks", meditation, and other similar activities.

Autosuggestion is most commonly accomplished by presenting (either through caressing or bombarding) one's mind with repetitive thoughts (negative or positive), until those thoughts become internalized. Practitioners typically hope to transmute thoughts into beliefs, and even into actualities. Visualizing the manifestations of a belief, verbally affirming it, and thinking it using one's "internal voice", are typical means of influencing one's mind via repetitive autosuggestion.

[awesumtenor]

The best defense against error, is truth.

If I am wrong in anything I say or believe here, it can be proven.

If you do so I will listen and consider what you say.

But posting this kind of thing to discredit me is really not helpful to any if you can not do that.

It doesn't mean anything, nor do I believe it is "In His Service"

Therein lies your problem... you think it's about you... all I am saying is if your basis for accepting Shelly Quinn's teaching is because it larrgely agrees with what you think, you are setting yourself up for failure and perhaps you'd be better served holding it up against a light that is somewhat brighter than your own understanding.

That's not my opinion; that's scripture. As for your thinking I am trying to "discredit you"... you have no stature or reputation as a scholar... so there is nothing to discredit.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ian]

Therein lies your problem... you think it's about you... all I am saying is if your basis for accepting Shelly Quinn's teaching is because it larrgely agrees with what you think, you are setting yourself up for failure and perhaps you'd be better served holding it up against a light that is somewhat brighter than your own understanding.

That's not my opinion; that's scripture. As for your thinking I am trying to "discredit you"... you have no stature or reputation as a scholar ... so there is nothing to discredit.

In His service,
Mr. J

We're trying not to engage in ad hominems here.

This post has been edited by Ian: Sep 25 2007, 11:57 AM

[watchbird]

Truthfully, when I first watched "Exalting His word" and heard her talking about Rhema and Logos, I thought it a bit weird myself..

So I did a study on all of it for myself. Her later programs seemed to be in accord with what I found in my own studies.

Depending on whether your "study on all of it for myself" took into consideration the points that can be made against it, or whether your study only followed her own route through scripture and/or others who also take that same route, the change from "a bit weird" to "in accord with what" you found.... could be a matter of getting used to the ideas so they no longer seemed "weird".

There is much that sounds attractive about Rhema claims.... and unless one is aware of the "other side of the story" it is all too easy to be enthralled by the attractive aspects and not notice the ways in which it is contrary to sound doctrine. I know only too well how easy that is... having had this type of experience... of becoming very enthused about certain teachings... only to find that they led to places I knew better than to go. Backing away from it was comparatively easy... studying to find the points at which I should have seen the danger signs way before I did took a lot longer. But I learned a lot from that .... and recognize a lot more error now than before.

Which is why I keep repeating that you don't know the subject until you have studied into the claims of those who oppose it, and learned what it looks like in its original setting, rather than disguised as "new light" in Christian settings.

[watchbird]

The best defense against error, is truth.

Before one can defend against error, one must learn to recognize error.

If I am wrong in anything I say or believe here, it can be proven.

No one can "prove" anything to anyone else. Truth... and error for that matter... must be sought for by each for himself. One can learn from what others say. But others can never prove anything to any one.

If you do so I will listen and consider what you say.

He who seeks will find. He who only waits for others to bring proofs will never find one that counters his own previous opinions (convictions).

[SoulEspresso]

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am taking part in a internet discussion group where we are trying to
determine the biblical definition and iimportance of "rhema", and the
difference between the Pentecostal and Evangelical interpretation and
understanding, and also which is truth and which is error.

It is my hope and prayer that you can assist myself and others to find a
correct understanding by answering some questions we have.

Your website and link here:
<http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema/>
were cited as an example of the Pentecostal/Charismatic teaching and understanding of the
word "Rhema".

Is this correct?

It was also claimed that you are part of the "word of faith" movement.

Is this correct?
The page on your site lists scriptures which are very helpful in
determining if this is biblical but there seems to be some confusion as
to which group you are more closely aligned with in your understanding
and explanation of rhema.

Are your views and interpretation of the Greek word Rhema, Pentecostal,
or the same as the Pentecostal view?
...

Thank you in advance for your time and your assistance.

In His Amazing Grace,
...

===========================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "MGA" <mga@iblp.org>
To: ....
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking info on Rhema and your affiliations
Dear ...
Just a quick note in response to your email. I have not studied the
teachings of those various groups on the matter of "rhemas". I suspect that some
use the word "rhema" to describe extra biblical revelation. This would be
totally contrary to what I teach.

A "rhema" is God opening our eyes of understanding to what has already been
written in scripture. For example, Jesus taught his disciples about His
coming death, burial and resurrection (logos). But it was only after His
resurrection that He opened the scriptures and revealed what He had spoken
to them about (rhemas). The result was their heart burned within them
(Luke 24:32).

It trust this will answer the questions that have been raised.

Through Christ our Lord,

Bill Gothard

This should be considered. Using a biblical example is helpful so far as it goes, but I want to know how or if Mr. Gothard applies it to contemporary situations; IOW does he view rhemas as only illuminations of Scripture re: what they meant in their own time, or can rhemas illuminate Scripture for our time?

I'm sure Shelley Quinn would say she does not teach extra-biblical revelation. After all, aren't the words of Scripture the verbalization of the rhemas she receives? But the trouble is that wresting the words of Scripture from their context and applying them to our own situation (like in the story about her vertigo I cited earlier) is that it's extremely subjective, or at least can come across that way.

How do we know that her interpretation of Scripture is correct? God impressed her! How do we know that it really was God impressing her? Because it lined up with Scripture ... according to her interpretation.

In other words, reapplying the words of Scripture as a rhema might not be "new revelation" in a verbal sense, but it is new revelation insofar as it's a new message for someone today.

I don't have a problem with person feeling they're being impressed. But I do get a little gunshy when they start saying, "God told me this" because it's not independently verifiable and somewhat arbitrary. I have situations in which I believe I'm impressed to do something-or-other; I think God told me this, but I could be wrong. Does she allow for this?

I've found this apologetics website helpful in critiquing at least some "rhema" teachings.

[Edited for clarity and diplomacy. Later edited again to add "a problem with" in second-to-last paragraph.]

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Sep 25 2007, 02:33 PM

[PeacefulBe]

-----Original Message-----
From: ... [mailto:....net]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:55 AM
To: info@iblp.org
Subject: Seeking info on Rhema and your affiliations

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am taking part in a internet discussion group where we are trying to
determine the biblical definition and iimportance of "rhema", and the
difference between the Pentecostal and Evangelical interpretation and
understanding, and also which is truth and which is error.

It is my hope and prayer that you can assist myself and others to find a
correct understanding by answering some questions we have.

Your website and link here:
<http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema/>
were cited as an example of the Pentecostal/Charismatic teaching and understanding of the
word "Rhema".

Is this correct?

It was also claimed that you are part of the "word of faith" movement.

Is this correct?
The page on your site lists scriptures which are very helpful in
determining if this is biblical but there seems to be some confusion as
to which group you are more closely aligned with in your understanding
and explanation of rhema.

Are your views and interpretation of the Greek word Rhema, Pentecostal,
or the same as the Pentecostal view?
...

Thank you in advance for your time and your assistance.

In His Amazing Grace,
...

===========================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "MGA" <mga@iblp.org>
To: ....
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking info on Rhema and your affiliations
Dear ...
Just a quick note in response to your email. I have not studied the
teachings of those various groups on the matter of "rhemas". I suspect that some
use the word "rhema" to describe extra biblical revelation. This would be
totally contrary to what I teach.

A "rhema" is God opening our eyes of understanding to what has already been
written in scripture. For example, Jesus taught his disciples about His
coming death, burial and resurrection (logos). But it was only after His
resurrection that He opened the scriptures and revealed what He had spoken
to them about (rhemas). The result was their heart burned within them
(Luke 24:32).

It trust this will answer the questions that have been raised.

Through Christ our Lord,

Bill Gothard

Ian,

Thank you for taking the time to make this connection with one of the people connected to the ati site. It adds another interesting layer to this study.

I did a bit of research on Bil Gothard, since I am not familiar with the man.

Wikipedia article about Bill Gothard

He is quite obviously of the conservative variety, and I find his concern about the powers of Cabbage Patch Kids and Troll Dolls a bit on the "odd" side, but what really piques my interest is that he pins "rhema" to after Christ's resurrection. Now, I'm almost positive that the word "rhema" shows up before the resurrection.

The Wikipedia article about rhema has the definition and then gives a list of examples of the use of the word, including many early in Matthew.:

Rhema (ρημα) Greek ; an utterance (indiv., collect. or spec.); by implication a matter or 'topic' (esp. of narration, command or dispute). From the primary verb Rheo (ρηω) to flow or run , as water; and the suffix ma(μα) , a finite dispensation or portion (eg. "charis", grace ; but "charisma", a portion of grace, (spiritual) gift, etc. From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Greek word #4487. It can be found in the following New Testament passages (not exhaustive):

Matthew 4:4 "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." (also Luke 4:4)
Matthew 12:36 *Matthew 12:36 "... every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it on the day of judgment..."
Matthew 18:16 "...by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word ( NIV- matter ) may be established."

---------------------------------

It appears that Gothard is making "rhemas" mean something entirely different than a Greek word for "word", that has nothing to do with whether it is a "rhema" or a "logos" word, but instead when it occurs and how it is understood. Yes, another layer to the onion, indeed.

[PeacefulBe]

This should be considered. Using a biblical example is helpful so far as it goes, but I want to know how or if Mr. Gothard applies it to contemporary situations; IOW does he view rhemas as only illuminations of Scripture re: what they meant in their own time, or can rhemas illuminate Scripture for our time?

I'm sure Shelley Quinn would say she does not teach extra-biblical revelation. After all, aren't the words of Scripture the verbalization of the rhemas she receives? But the trouble is that wresting the words of Scripture from their context and applying them to our own situation (like in the story about her vertigo I cited earlier) is that it's extremely subjective, or at least can come across that way.

How do we know that her interpretation of Scripture is correct? God impressed her! How do we know that it really was God impressing her? Because it lined up with Scripture ... according to her interpretation.

In other words, reapplying the words of Scripture as a rhema might not be "new revelation" in a verbal sense, but it is new revelation insofar as it's a new message for someone today.

I don't have a person feeling they're being impressed. But I do get a little gunshy when they start saying, "God told me this" because it's not independently verifiable and somewhat arbitrary. I have situations in which I believe I'm impressed to do something-or-other; I think God told me this, but I could be wrong. Does she allow for this?

I've found this apologetics website helpful in critiquing at least some "rhema" teachings.

Soul,
Very informative site! Thank you!

[PeacefulBe]

In case you missed the connection, the reason I posted the definition of "affirmation" on the previous page is because of something roxe said in post #4...

...you take an hour each day saying these prayers over and over for as many months required to receive the "answer" from God;

You DEMAND that God does just as you keep saying over and over each day.

If this is actually the case, it would help us narrow down several things about Quinn's sources and her approch towards what she calls rhema and scriptural "affirmation."

Laurence,

I will dig into my copy of the book and see if I can come up with a quote that parallels roxe's statement. I have watched all of the broadcast shows in the past and don't remember such a statement, but I make no claims of having a great memory. This will take time but I will post what I find.

PeacefulBe

[LaurenceD]

Laurence,

I will dig into my copy of the book and see if I can come up with a quote that parallels roxe's statement. I have watched all of the broadcast shows in the past and don't remember such a statement, but I make no claims of having a great memory. This will take time but I will post what I find.

PeacefulBe

Thanks, Peaceful.

Whoever said Shelly Quinn's book, Exalting His Word, with a picture of her on the cover, and copyrighted in 2006--was her first and only book is wrong. I have a copy of an earlier edition, copyrighted in 2003. This book is a loose leaf binder, 11" x 8½" paper cover with a picture of waterfalls and forest on the front, along with the title, Exalting His Word. The subtitle says, "With Life Affirmations from Scripture"

I have a copy of this book in my hands. Here's the problem I'm having:

"The Father and Son alone are to be exalted" -EGW, SD p.58

Quinn seems to be saying that Christ and the Bible are one and the same in some sense. If you have the book, or can read the first chapter online, watch how she places much emphasis on capitalizing "word" in certain places but not in others. Read her first chapter and see if you don't agree there's something going on here...equating the word (Bible) with the Word (Christ). I'm convinced this is what she is doing. Her basic premise is found in Psalms 138:2 She quote the Amplified Bible which says...

"You have exalted above all else Your name and Your word
and You have magnified Your word above all Your name"

But, in her book she seems to be using the New International Version (or other) which says...

"you have exalted above all things your name and your word."

Other versions don't seem to use the words "exalted" or "magnified" (KJV uses magnified):

for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. -KJV

For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name. -NASB

for your promises are backed by all the honor of your name. -NLT

You were true to your word and made yourself more famous than ever before. -CEV

You have made your name and your word greater than anything. -NCV

For Thou hast made great Thy saying above all Thy name. -YLT

For You have honored Your Word because of what Your name is. -NLV

You have honored your name and your word more than anything else. -NIRV

I'm listening to one of her tapes right now also. She does pray in Jesus name. And, she does emphasize repeating the words of the Bible over and over as an affirmation. She note that "this might sound strange to some people."

CONCLUSION: I think she's fusing the word (Bible) with the Word (Christ) and going back and forth between the two unawares to the reader. Shouldn't there be a distinction? Well, you know what I think of trying to equate the script with the person.

More later....