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

[LaurenceD]

Perhaps we're just seeing the double-mind here again...

First, appletree rails against those who use innuendo (an indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication), then Ian resorts to that very thing...which is only a lesser form of the same natural tendancy--ad hominem. Like I've said, it doesn't bother me. I find it helpful to know when someone has reached the end of their logical rope and has no other place to turn...

To me it appears some here have made up their minds and seek only to support their preconceived negative opinions, and that the spirit of criticism is always governing what they say and see. They don't start with questions, they start with conclusions, and then keep digging to support that.

All one has to do is compare Quinn's quotes with that of EGW to see a big difference. The key lies in understanding Quinn's misguided interpretation of...

Is 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

This is the verse Quinn referred to Thursday night live. In her book, she calls this rehma affirmation. She calls this a process of talking God's word back to him so you can hear your own living voice and somehow acquire the mind of Christ through this process.

This is far different than what the bible means by rhema. This is all that can be understood. There's no making up minds going on here and seeking only to support one's preconceived negative opinions, and no spirit of criticism is governing what is said or seen here. It's not starting with conclusions at all, and then digging to support that conclusion. This is only being said to somehow shape public perception into believing it's somehow true. But, it's not. No amount of repeating it will help either. If one wants to write and publish a controversial book, one must learn how to accept critical analysis. It's all part of the refining process.

Christ warns us to be wise as serpents, discerning truth from error. We're not to imitate them.

[watchbird]

Thank you Ian, for your effort in accumulating the texts that include the Greek word "rhema" in them. I would, however, appreciate it if when you quote me you would include enough context so that my meaning is not distorted.... or... in case I did not make myself clear in what I said.... here it is again.... and I'll follow it with some explication....

The word Rhema is used exclusively by certain bodies of believers.

This is the line you quoted. And while this could be misunderstood by itself, surely if you had taken the rest of my post seriously you would have understood that I meant to say that "The word Rhema, as a lable for a doctrine about that word, is used exclusively by certain bodies of believers."

That should have been evident, since I went on to state....

You are correct that the "exact same things" can be taught and practiced without using the word. That also is done in certain segments of Christianity. And it is a false practice based on false doctrine whether done without the label or with it.

IOW.... "the exact save things" that are taught under the label of "Rhema".... ie the doctrines and practices and underlying world view.... can and are taught without using the Rhema label.

Affirmation is a more neutral word, and has doctrinally neutral uses both within and without Christian circles. One has to take in the context in which it is used... and the expectations placed upon its use... in order to figure out whether one should "find fault" with its use.

There is a certain group of doctrines that accompany the use of the word Rhema in Word/Faith communities of faith. It was, in fact, things that I heard Shelly say.... even before I realized that she used the word Rhema with Word/Faith definitions for it..... that involved some of these doctrines, that caused me to realize that she had not left her basic Word/Faith doctrines and definitions behind when she joined the Adventist church.

Unfortunately, this is not all that unusual, with the result that these doctrines have been infiltrating Adventist books for some years. And since Adventist ministers and teachers are for the most part content to preach against only a few doctrinal errors that have been "standard" throughout our history.... many of them not even taking the trouble to keep up with the errancies that have become very popular in the Christian world in the last 50 years.... it is understandable that many do not even recognize them as errors.

For example, the early Christian Church... let's not condemn all with that broad brush.

It is found 70 times in the New Testament scriptures.

There is no doctrine nor practics taught by the early Christian church that matches the doctrine, pre-suppositions (world view), and practices that are used by Christian churches today who embrace and use the word Rhema as a label for their certain set of doctrines, presuppositions, and practices.

Rhema is merely one of the Greek words which is translated as "word" in English.

The mere fact that the word is used does NOT mean that they meant by it the same things that Shelley... and other Word/Faith believers mean by it.

[PeacefulBe]

I'm sorry that I don't see all of us looking to find the truth, as you do. To me it appears some here have made up their minds and seek only to support their preconceived negative opinions, and that the spirit of criticism is always governing what they say and see. They don't start with questions, they start with conclusions, and then keep digging to support that.

Please don't take that wrong, I said some, NOT ALL.

I'm not going to play games and pretend to be blind or wear rosy glasses, and ignore the obvious, nor apologise for that. Nor am I going to believe that only the ones that those finding fault with 3abn perceive as being Dannyclones need to be corrected here, or that only they have the wrong spirit. That goes for this thread and any other on this forum. Ask yourself how many mean spirited nasty negative comments and posts you never reply to, or correct.

If you have a hard time figuring it out, pm me, I'll give you a list of posts and words you can critique.

All it does is make myself and others not want to even try to discuss anything, and reveal to the readers how one sided so many here are.

I am one person and I pick my battles - IOW, it would be nearly impossible for me to reply to or correct every mean-spirited, nasty, negative comment and post. Many of those speak so clearly of their spirit that no response is necessary.

By your statement that I have bolded, are you saying that you have made a list of posts that you believe I have failed to respond to properly?

Moving on.

Don't get to excited. I doubt she has read this thread, or comes to BSDA at all.

To clarify, Shelly Quinn's answers were on the Thursday night live program, and were not in relation to any about rhema, or her book, nor do I remember her even using the word rhema or affirmation, but I do remember thinking that I wished all taking part in this thread or reading it, could hear her.

What she said was in answer to questions about how to pray, when you didn't like to, or get anything from it, and being born again, that kind of thing. Her answers were related to what she has been teaching about that though, and related to what we are discussing here, and even the criticisms posted here.

Ian, I apologize that I misunderstood your earlier statement:

Did any of you watch the panel and questions from the audience at the 3ABN campmeeeting?
Shelly Quinn in her answers explained much of this and it is not as you are perceiving it, at all.In fact , her programs on "Exalting His word" do as well, and so I am quite sure that those who do not have a bias and watch them will think just as I do, that you don't know what you are talking about.

Rather than lodge a general complaint about what you see here in this thread, could you actually post and respond to those conclusions that you find faulty? You certainly must agree that it would be foolish to accept whatever someone says as truth simply because it sounds okay, without careful study to make certain it is, right?

2Timothy2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

[LaurenceD]

Rather than lodge a general complaint about what you see here in this thread, could you actually post and respond to those conclusions that you find faulty?

But, if one's arguments don't hold water, why would they want to do that? General innuendo would be their best course of discourse, of course...and that's all we'll see I suspect...no actual dialogue about the nuts and bolts of the issue. I think the 3abners would consider it blasphemy to actually question, critically analyze, or disagree with Quinn's book. Whenever doubt is created about their affairs, their goal seems to be to somehow divert attention from the issue, the book in this case, and to questioning those who are questioning the issue.

That goal never works of course, but they are relentless in trying to protect their interests.

[Ian]

When you say "word" do you mean his written word, or Christ the Word?

Generally, Quinn means the written Word when she says it should be exalted. She makes that very clear. But I agree with EGW that the Father and Son alone should be exalted and that, as she says, the written word should not be a distraction from the one who stands beside it.

You are one of the ones I believe is bent on taking what Mrs Quinn says out of context. Discussing what she has written with you would just lead to more of what you have already been posting, like the put downs, & ad hominems above. I don't see any merit to continuing such.

But, in answer to your question about my meaning? I mean both.

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Do you know what that means? It was our Lord who spoke to and through the prophets. It was also our Lord who gave the law. As he said, the scriptures testify of him. His word is the Father's word.

I don't believe you can try and separate our Creator from what he says and reveals without being in error.

God's word is God's word, and is truth. Whether it be revealed in the inspired and written word or in His Son's life by act, word, and example.

This post has been edited by Ian: Oct 2 2007, 05:14 PM

[LaurenceD]

But, in answer to your question about my meaning? I mean both.

...

I don't believe you can try and separate our Creator from what he says and reveals without being in error.

Thanks. What about this EGW statement? She is very clear on the difference.

"We must not think that the reading of the word can accomplish that which only He whom the word reveals, who stands beside the word, can accomplish..." 4RH 339

Quinn uses Isaiah 55:11 to support her rhema affirmation exrcise, but where in that verse does it mean we are to say/pray his words back to him? I'm unable to see that inference coming from that verse. The term, "it shall not return unto me void" was merely an expression, a way of saying that his word accomplishes the purpose it intends. I think The Message nicely clears up the ambiguity of the language here. Translations of expressions often give way to misunderstandings...

Just as rain and snow descend from the skies
and don't go back until they've watered the earth,
Doing their work of making things grow and blossom,
producing seed for farmers and food for the hungry,
So will the words that come out of my mouth
not come back empty-handed.
They'll do the work I sent them to do,
they'll complete the assignment I gave them.

You might see the difference here too. Isaiah is not saying to repeat God's words back to him. This can mean that if we take God's words to heart it may change our life and we'll talk less and do more as an expression of that change.

This post has been edited by LaurenceD: Oct 2 2007, 06:08 PM

[Rosyroi]

Since this thread was started most folk had been having some very interesting heavy discussion about Shelly Quinn's book and what was included in it. Information was comming in fast from many different works and added and discussed. Good discussion was conducted without attacking each other for the most part which I appreciated until now.

Since this is a forum and folk have a right to opinions I would like to know why our right to our opinion needs to be attacked.

I am not a scholar but I was enjoying this deep discussion. I appreciate learning new ideas and new thoughts and new opinions from others from various walks of life. But attacking people for their opinions seems inappropriate to me. Opinions don't necessarily mean they become facts.



IMHO

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Oct 2 2007, 10:02 PM

[SoulEspresso]

"You must first show that a man is wrong before you try to explain how he got to be so silly."

I wasn't sure what was going to come out of this study. On one hand I was disgusted with Ms. Quinn's use of the story of John the Baptist to verbally lash out at Danny's stepdaughter. On the other, people whose spiritual discernment I respect have been blessed by some of her teachings.

Nobody here's cherry-picking Ms. Quinn's book for problems, Ian. We've just been trying to figure out what it is that she's teaching and how it compares with Scripture and a Scriptural view of God's word (rhema or logos) and for that matter God's world. I wonder how carefully you paid attention to the earlier posts in the thread; it might have saved you some research time.

[Seraphim7]

This whole Rhema thing appears to me to be a psychological exercise in

1. wanting something
2. finding a text that says you deserve it
3. Repeating the text that you "says you deserve it" until you believe that you do deserve it
4. Using scripture to lend divine weight to your desire
5. Using the divine weight to cause yourself to believe that it must inevitably happen for you since it is divinely appointed
6. acting on the divine appointment of what you want

This is a spinoff on the many new-age doctrines that tell you that if you want something bad enough, and you believe it will happen, and you visualize it happenning, it will happen, because you will make it happen. At least that is how I see it.

Sounds like that "if you believe it you will receive it" mindset... which has been taught in various circles.

[SoulEspresso]

To clarify my earlier post, while I began with an open mind out of respect for certain friends, I'm profoundly disturbed by what we've uncovered here in this thread.

You're right, Seraphim7. That's exactly what it is.

[Ian]

Thank you Ian, for your effort in accumulating the texts that include the Greek word "rhema" in them. I would, however, appreciate it if when you quote me you would include enough context so that my meaning is not distorted.... or... in case I did not make myself clear in what I said.... here it is again.... and I'll follow it with some explication....

The word Rhema is used exclusively by certain bodies of believers. You are correct that the "exact same things" can be taught and practiced without using the word. That also is done in certain segments of Christianity. And it is a false practice based on false doctrine whether done without the label or with it.

This is the line you quoted. And while this could be misunderstood by itself, surely if you had taken the rest of my post seriously you would have understood that I meant to say that "The word Rhema, as a lable for a doctrine about that word, is used exclusively by certain bodies of believers."

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I didn't understand you, or that you feel my partial quote misrepresented what you were saying,( I included more above) but the truth is, I got it.

You are trying to make the word rhema and it's application and the beliefs about it be "exclusive" to a certain body of believers, and the use of the wprd, rhema be "exclusive" to doctrinal error, so you can say Mrs Quinn is one of "them". Then if you prove "them" wrong, she is guilty by association. I am not buying that at this point. That is a straw man argument.

We should not make anyone a offender for a word, and that's exactly what it sounds like you are doing..

That should have been evident, since I went on to state....

IOW.... "the exact save things" that are taught under the label of "Rhema".... ie the doctrines and practices and underlying world view.... can and are taught without using the Rhema label.
There is no doctrine nor practics taught by the early Christian church that matches the doctrine, pre-suppositions (world view), and practices that are used by Christian churches today who embrace and use the word Rhema as a label for their certain set of doctrines, presuppositions, and practices.

Rhema is merely one of the Greek words which is translated as "word" in English.

The mere fact that the word is used does NOT mean that they meant by it the same things that Shelley... and other Word/Faith believers mean by it.

Nor does the fact that others teach certain things about it, mean Mrs Quinn does. Please stop trying to do these group judgments.


What does the bible teach, and is what she is teaching in accord with that or not?


Many teach errors about many things, such as the secret rapture,(parousia) eternal hellfire, or hell as a separate place (hades) the immortal soul ( psuche) but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and refuse to use those greek words, nor do we stick everyone else who does so into a group and claim they are used by a exclusive group of believers only. That would be ridiculous. They are biblical words and we teach the truth about them as used in the scriptures.

Anyone who is a serious bible student, whenstudying the bible and the underlying words and meanings and applications of them will use and define the word, "rhema" when it is in a verse they are studying, it' is no different then studying about any other Greek word.

If people study how "word of God" is used, and don't find the word rhema, that will be a problem.

To clarify, I quoted the texts to help all here understand what rhema means and how it is used in the bible.. I did so to help answer the question posed on this thread "How does it relate to Adventism"?

I also did so as Shelley Quinn stated her definition came in part from, Strongs, and vines.. and in part from it's usage in scripture. I had already quoted the references, so I thought it would be helpful to look at how "rhemaa" was used, to round out the picture and get a true definition of the word which we could all work with.

When it comes to the definition of Rhema, and what Shelley Quinn wrote as a definition in her book, and how she uses it, it is exactly as the scriptures I just quoted demonstrate.

But "Rhema" and "a rhema affirmation" are two different things.

The part where you all are concerned, and the arguments here don't really seem to have anything to do with rhema, itself, or even her use of that word, it is "rhema affirmation" which seems to be the real problem with most here.

Yet you write.

Affirmation is a more neutral word, and has doctrinally neutral uses both within and without Christian circles. One has to take in the context in which it is used... and the expectations placed upon its use... in order to figure out whether one should "find fault" with its use.
There is a certain group of doctrines that accompany the use of the word Rhema in Word/Faith communities of faith.

.

[Ian]

"You must first show that a man is wrong before you try to explain how he got to be so silly."

I wasn't sure what was going to come out of this study. On one hand I was disgusted with Ms. Quinn's use of the story of John the Baptist to verbally lash out at Danny's stepdaughter. On the other, people whose spiritual discernment I respect have been blessed by some of her teachings.

Nobody here's cherry-picking Ms. Quinn's book for problems, Ian. We've just been trying to figure out what it is that she's teaching and how it compares with Scripture and a Scriptural view of God's word (rhema or logos) and for that matter God's world. I wonder how carefully you paid attention to the earlier posts in the thread; it might have saved you some research time.

S.E.

I guess we're seeing this differently. The topic here is supposed to be "rhema" and "rhema affirmations

But you yourself can't even seem to get on the same page as those of us trying to discuss that.

Here you are claiming you are disgusted because Mrs Quinn told the story of John the baptist. You applied what she said to Danny's step-daughter and then got disgusted with Mrs Quinn because you did so. Here you are verbally lashing out at her while you accuse her of that, This, after you and others made that comparison and applied what she said to Linda and her daughter yourselves. She certainly never said that. And isn't this actually offtopic in a discussion on rhema?

You are objecting to the title of the book and claiming it's dangerous to call the bible the word of God

Laurence also is stuck on trying to define whether the word of God is Jesus or the bible and can't seem to understand that Adventist's teach and believe it's both.

Both of you are objecting to exalting his word, if Jesus isn't being referred to.

WB keeps trying to make group judgments and make Mrs Quinn a offender simply because she defines and uses the Greek word Rhema

Other's are quoting rhema affirmations from various websites and not showing how they apply to what Shelly Quinn wrote or teaches...

Laurence is quoting all kinds of quotes and being concerned about and claiming that she leaves Jesus out, which is ridiculous. Put his name, and various titles referring to him into a search of her book on google books to see how she includes him in all.

He posted a whole list of out of context and unrelated short quotes from Shelley Quinn's book, but you don't see that as cherry picking, and claim no one is doing that..

Fine, but I do see that being done.. and I do believe all this is keeping us from getting to the meat of this issue.

This post has been edited by Ian: Oct 4 2007, 06:07 AM

[Ian]

Thanks. What about this EGW statement? She is very clear on the difference.

"We must not think that the reading of the word can accomplish that which only He whom the word reveals, who stands beside the word, can accomplish..." 4RH 339[/indent

I apreciate and agree with that quote. It is also true we must not think we are following Christ if we are not following and obeying his word..How can we exalt Him, while not exalting what he has said, and while not understanding the importance of all that God says?

Quinn uses Isaiah 55:11 to support her rhema affirmation exrcise, but where in that verse does it mean we are to say/pray his words back to him? I'm unable to see that inference coming from that verse. The term, "it shall not return unto me void" was merely an expression, a way of saying that his word accomplishes the purpose it intends. I think The Message nicely clears up the ambiguity of the language here. Translations of expressions often give way to misunderstandings...
[indent]Just as rain and snow descend from the skies
and don't go back until they've watered the earth,
Doing their work of making things grow and blossom,
producing seed for farmers and food for the hungry,
So will the words that come out of my mouth
not come back empty-handed.
They'll do the work I sent them to do,
they'll complete the assignment I gave them.
You might see the difference here too. Isaiah is not saying to repeat God's words back to him. This can mean that if we take God's words to heart it may change our life and we'll talk less and do more as an expression of that change.

Question:

if you disagree with Mrs. Quinn, fine you do, but what is it you think is meant by "will not come back empty handed"? or as the KJV says "it shall not return to me void"

If you think it means something else, what do you think it means?

Can we approach this from another angle?

The bible refers to "confess with the mouth" in Rom 10. Why do you think saying the words out loud is needed if someone already believes something in their heart?

I quoted this in my earlier post, here it is again to consider:

Rom 10:6 -17
"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]:

Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

But what saith it? The (Rhema) word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the (Rhema) word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the (Rhema) word of God."

What do you believe is meant by this, and does it have anything to do with, or relate to the text in Isa?

This post has been edited by Ian: Oct 4 2007, 07:49 AM

[västergötland]

I see that we need a closer look at Logos and Rhema with the text content included. The definition of Rhema as given in post 168 of this thread.

.Logos (Greek, pronounouced "Log' -os") --translated-- Word (English)
The word Logos implies the sum of god's reveltion to humanity. It's vast unfolding of the reasoning and power 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.

Rhema (Greek, pronounced "Ray'-mah") --translated-- Word (English)
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).

So, the word Logos is supposedly used when the author is refering to the sum of Gods revelation to humanity, which I suppose would mean more or less the contents of the bible or to Jesus christ. So here I have a few quotes which may be of some intrest.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Every word of God, does that sound like Jesus might be refering to 'the sum of Gods revelation to humanity'? And yet, this verse has Rhema and not Logos. So if the theory holds, this is refering to a specific word with an applied purpose. Ok, lets move on.

Joh 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Here we have an example from Jesus prayer at the first communion service. A previous verse says that the diciples have keept Gods logos, and here they have recieved Jesus rhema. Interesting.

Rom 10:13-18 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But which word? Surely this if any would be the 'vast unfolding of the reasoning and power of God'. But alas, it is not. For here we learn that the faith that comes by hearing is not from the reasoning and power of God but rather from 'a specific word spoken by God with an applied purpose, a word of God that has a practical and immediate function'. It is therefore no longer any suprise to find that..

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

..neither is the word of God, sword of the Spirit come from Gods reasoning and power logos.
But, to complicate things even worse, come Peter in his two epistles and writes..

1 Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Peter here says that the rhema of the Lord endureth for ever? And in

2 Pet 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour

..Peter tells us to be mindful of the rhemas of the prophets of old. The rhema, 'a specific word spoken by God with an applied purpose, a word of God that has a practical and immediate function' as spoken by the prophets is something that we are told by Peter to be mindful of. What can I say? Maybe this is not so clearcut as it appears to be by a first glance after all...

[Ian]

I see that we need a closer look at Logos and Rhema with the text content included. The definition of Rhema as given in post 168 of this thread.

.Logos (Greek, pronounouced "Log' -os") --translated-- Word (English)
The word Logos implies the sum of god's reveltion to humanity. It's vast unfolding of the reasoning and power 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.

Rhema (Greek, pronounced "Ray'-mah") --translated-- Word (English)
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).

So, the word Logos is supposedly used when the author is refering to the sum of Gods revelation to humanity, which I suppose would mean more or less the contents of the bible or to Jesus christ. So here I have a few quotes which may be of some intrest.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Every word of God, does that sound like Jesus might be refering to 'the sum of Gods revelation to humanity'? And yet, this verse has Rhema and not Logos. So if the theory holds, this is refering to a specific word with an applied purpose. Ok, lets move on.

I have to leave soon, so only have time to comment on the first verse mentioned in your post.

The word rhema has to mean a singular word of God such as a saying, passage, command etc, in this verse, because it says "Every rhema of God" If it doesn't mean a singular and specific part of the Logos then the word "every" makes no sense.

For example "Every celestial body" makes sense, but "Every Universe" does not. There is only one.

Jesus is talking about all of God's word here however for every rhema of God would equal the Logos of God.