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

[Johann]

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.

What you gave us was a valuable background to understand the Biblical concepts of logos and rhema. This is valuable when you try to understand the meaning of the words as used in Scripture. The trouble is that this rule does not apply any more when someone uses the Biblical terms to designate a teaxhing that has no roots in Scripture. Some of us consider this to be the case with some of what has been posted here on the net.

This post has been edited by Johann: Oct 11 2007, 12:33 AM

[Seraphim7]

[LaurenceD]

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..

It's also true that if we think we are following Christ, and as a result there is much power and much light in us, but no sweet peace, that we have been fooled by the one who is now sitting in the seat where Christ once sat. (EW p.55-56).

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?

I recommend you start with the counsel given by EGW...that the Father and Son ALONE are to be exalted (you'll find the quote a few pages back--book and page number). Combine that with her clear deliniation between the written word and Christ the word quoted above...and you'll have the right recipe for success on this subject. Combine that with what Christ said (book of John) about the Pharisees who thought there was eternal life to be found in their searching of the scriptures. They couldn't get beyond that idea even though the PERSON the written word talked about was right in front of them.

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.

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?

I think I sufficiently explained it above in using The Message to help unravel the ancient Hebrew/Old English ambiguous expression "it shall not return to me void." What it clearly doesn't mean is Quinn's mental exercise...a process she calls "rhema affirmation"...repeating God's words back to him to somehow acquire the mind of Christ.

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

The answer to your question here will come in time if you'll start on the first rung of the ladder of understanding - the EGW and the biblical quotes above.

[watchbird]

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.

Unfortunately you show by your words that you have not yet "got it". And I haven't asked you to "buy" anything "at this point". What I have asked for is patience while I take time to thoroughly examine the Quinn books so as to give specific examples for us to consider.

As for the use of Rhema as a label for a group of doctrines.... that IS exclusive to the Word/Faith groups of believers.... OTOH.... not all who accept the doctrines involved 1) belong to a separately identified "group"... nor do they 2) all include the use of the word Rhema with its specialized meaning in their vocabulary as they teach their beliefs and practices.

I have no intent to show that Quinn is "guilty by association". I WILL show that what she teaches is essentially identical to the false teachings of the Word/Faith Rhema groups. I will also show that her use of scripture is not in line with the way scripture itself says it should be used... and is not in line with official Adventist teachings about the use of scripture and how to study it.

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

Yes, that is the question. And the answer is no... I have seen enough already to be confident in saying that. I will give specific examples once I have her book actually in hand so I'm not working merely from the excerpts that are available on net.

And as being an "offender for a word"... that is not what any of us are doing. It is the things she teaches that show that she is in line with standard Rhema error... her use of the word only alerts us to that, it is not in itself the problem.

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"?

That may have been your motive... but that is not what you accomplished. Yes, rhema is a Greek word that means the same as the English word "word". And no one who reads the Greek scriptures avoids the word rhema. But this is very different from the doctrines and practices that have grown around the label "rhema" in the Word/Faith movement... and that are evident in Ms Quinn's teachings.

The question of "How does it relate to Adventism"... with "it" referring back to the first phrase in this thread title is a very different one .... and one that cannot be cogently addressed until after we establish exactly what the belief called Rhema actually involves.

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.

And for this purpose, this was good, and I appreciate you bringing the texts together for us.... but it is important to note that Shelley said that her definition came "in part" from these sources. The important thing to establish is whether or not there are additional things in her definition (which is identical to Word/Faith definitions, btw) and whether or not these are different from the definition as it is understood by Biblical scholars in general... including SDA scholars.

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.

Then this is where we disagree.

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.

I agree that these are two different things. And that the differentiation we are making is between "rhema itself" and Shelly's "use of the word "rhema". And yes, the "real problem" is that of putting the two things together and making a "rhema affirmation" as Shelley teaches in her book.

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."

Yes, indeed. the word "affirmation" by itself has a wide variety of uses in our society, some that have none of the connotations and expectations that are taught by Quinn in her book... nor that are held by the Word/Faith community at large.... nor by the many other groups both Christian and non-Christian who also use it to mean a magical way of accomplishing change by the mere power that is intrinsic within thoughts and/or spoken words.

But when one combines the two terms into "Rhema affirmations", then that limits the definition as well as the connotations and expectations, and identifies it as being part of the Word/Faith Movement body of beliefs.

So yes, we agree on this point. This is the "real problem".. and the very real error.... and delving into the way scripture uses the word rhema by itself is useful for contrast in the way scripture uses it and the way those who teach "rhema affirmations" teach it. But we must not get sidetracked into thinking that the definition of "rhema" in and of itself is our total goal.

Discernment between truth and error requires two things... 1) that we be familiar with truth, and 2) that we be knowledgeable about the error. If we do not know each in its pure form we have little or no hope of recognizing which is which when they come to us blended together.


[edited by adding phrase in bold above, which should have been included in that sentence.]

This post has been edited by watchbird: Oct 6 2007, 08:31 AM

[roxe]

WB,
Preach it, girl!! I'm really looking forward to your expert analysis when you have both the OLD and NEW books in hand. Personally, I'll be interested in seeing if her teaching is closer to Bible truth in the new book than in the old one...

OR if it is only more subtle error...

[SoulEspresso]

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

*sigh* Yes, we're seeing this differently. The question is, as you've noted, whether the teaching on rhema is part of a biblical worldview or whether it's a meaning that Quinn has imposed on the text.

The evidence is that she came up with this way of using the words of the Bible, and then looked and found texts in the Bible which she used to support her own ideas about how the Bible should be used.

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

I'm sorry to have let you down.

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.

She told the story of John the Baptist, Ian, but not the story of John the Baptist found in the Bible. She never applied it directly, no, but the sentences she constructed and the phrases she used were clearly intended to call Alyssa a liar. You remember ... "caught in a web of deceit"? Herodias's daughter was never caught in a web of deceit. Danny would like you to think Alyssa was, though.

And isn't this actually offtopic in a discussion on rhema?

It is not offtopic when we're considering whether 3ABN teaches the truth; I became interested in rhema, which is the thrust of her teaching, because of the dichotomy between her misleading use of Scripture on TV which I saw with my own eyes, and the positive reports on her teaching that I heard from my friends.

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

I explained this to you at length, Ian. I do not appreciate you taking this out of context in an attempt to mislead readers of this thread.

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.

A lot of people refer to Jesus all the time. "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'"

I want everyone to read the Bible and use it as their only rule for faith and practice. I want everyone to call Jesus Lord and serve Him with all their hearts.

I also want people to be honest with what the Bible says and how Jesus works in our lives. When I see people teaching the Bible wrongly, and teaching about Jesus wrongly, do I not have the right to object?

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..

If we can see myriad problems with her teaching just in the excerpts that we find on the web ... it isn't cherry-picking. We can see that she has a worldview that disagrees with the Bible without even looking hard. It's just too bad you can't see it.

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.

Over time, Ian, I've learned that just because a person disagrees with me doesn't mean they're wrong. I would cordially invite you to consider that.

[LaurenceD]

Thanks for posting that agian, SE. I had intended on overlooking the obvious, but may as well comment on it.

Sometimes Ian rephrases what people say, rather than actually quoting them...and in such a way that it's suppose to look as though this rephrasing may be correct. But, I'm sure we're all familialr enough with this craft to realize the twist. Case in point: Ian says, "Laurence also is stuck on trying to define whether the word of God is Jesus or the bible" but, Ian apparently doesn't have the nerve to actually quote me in context. I like to know when a writer is talking about one or the other since the Word can mean one or the other, or both. Earlier, I had made some comments that Quinn generally doesn't make the distinction clear, but that I think she should. Most of the time Quinn would have the reader understand that she means the written Word of God is to be exalted, but at times she'll come right out and call it Christ the Word...fusing the two so that one definition can always cover for the other.

When EGW says the Father and Son alone are to be exalted, she makes it clear that she's talking about people, not written or spoken words. There's no confusion, no attempt to make people think they should be exalting scripture. But, Quinn doesn't do that at all. Her emphasis is that scripture should be exalted, and she appears to hide her personal interpretation of that by fusing the word "Word" under two defintions.

This post has been edited by LaurenceD: Oct 7 2007, 06:27 PM

[SoulEspresso]

I wanted to let it go, LD, but I couldn't.

To the topic: as far as "rhema affirmations" go, why don't we turn it around? This is what I'd like to ask:

Throughout Scripture, we see how books written later in the history of the Bible refer to, allude to, or quote directly passages of previous Scripture--particularly the NT of the OT. Can anyone think of any Bible character or passage that uses other Scripture passages in the Bible the way Quinn says we should in her book?

[Brick Step]

I have not had time to thoroughly digest all that has been discussed about rhema and logos. So far I am nervous about Shelley Quinn’s teachings on this subject. When I can find the time I will go back and make a closer study. Thank you for the contributions on this site.

I have also felt Shelley made a cruel mistake, on world television, in likening Linda and her daughter to Herodias and her daughter when they asked for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Though the parallel was not explicitly stated, the inference was indeed clearly there. I think it sent a lot of viewers reeling. At the least Shelley’s approach was too much too quick. Deeply sincere people are still struggling to know and understand the facts of the situation, and available information does not seem to justify such a judgment. (Was this implied judgment a result of the application of a false concept of the word rhema? Is that what some are implying?)

Having said all that, is there any one of us that is not carrying some kind of baggage from an imperfect past? I have really appreciated Shelley’s courage and insights on most other fronts. I can believe she would have been a straight A student. She comes over as having the zeal of an eleventh hour worker, and with her husband - well, I think they balance each other out beautifully and make a great team in God's work.

Maybe someone has already mentioned this interview shown on 3ABN. Yesterday afternoon (Sunday, 7 October for us) we saw a replay of Danny Shelton’s interview with Shelley Quinn (done about a year ago?) in regard to the very real experience she had with vertigo, a terrible affliction she endured constantly for four months. She explained her feelings of disorientation and desperation as nothing in her world was ever still. One doctor even suggested she have the nerves to her ears cut. It would leave her deaf, but that might be preferable to trying to live with vertigo, he said. But, he added, there was no guarantee this drastic measure would cure her affliction. She told how she suddenly understood why some people decide to commit suicide, and was afraid she might descend into a state where she might make that decision. She told how she cried out to God for help, how He helped, how she clung to God's promises in the Bible, and, as a result, how she came to write—in about seventeen days flat—what has become known as Exalting His Word. That's how I remember things anyway. I thought it was quite a testimony. It oriented me to see good in this book, if not perfection of argument. (I don't recollect any mention of the word rhema in this interview.) God speaks through providences. But it is certainly wisdom to double check all providences by the Bible.

[watchbird]

I wanted to let it go, LD, but I couldn't.

To the topic: as far as "rhema affirmations" go, why don't we turn it around? This is what I'd like to ask:

Throughout Scripture, we see how books written later in the history of the Bible refer to, allude to, or quote directly passages of previous Scripture--particularly the NT of the OT. Can anyone think of any Bible character or passage that uses other Scripture passages in the Bible the way Quinn says we should in her book?

This is a very important point. Those who claim that Quinn is using scripture correctly and putting the burden on those who disagree to show that she is not, need to also take an active role in this discussion and 1) show where she DOES use scripture correctly, and 2) show scripture evidence of her methods being actually based on scripture itself.

[inga]

Brick Step, I am extremely leery of accepting spiritual teachings on the basis of such miracles.

You see, Satan and his demons can also work miracles. And the affliction from which Shelley Quinn suffered and was the delivered sounds like a fairly simple one to bring on by someone who is intelligent about the biochemical make-up of the human brain. IOW, it would be easy enough for Satan to bring on the affliction and then work a "miracle" to deliver her from it for the precise purpose of introducing false teachings.

In fact, there are many miracles in the world today to back up blatantly false teachings. Just because the "miracle" happened to a professing Adventist does not prove that God was the one providing the miracle nor that He intended to confirm her teaching which is not biblical. God does not change; thus He never contradicts the message of His own word (i.e. the Bible).

Disclaimer: I am not saying that this did happen to Shelly Quinn. I am only saying that it would be easy enough for Satan to do and that we should not give her teachings any more credence than we normally would because of such "miracles."

Maybe someone has already mentioned this interview shown on 3ABN. Yesterday afternoon (Sunday, 7 October for us) we saw a replay of Danny Shelton’s interview with Shelley Quinn (done about a year ago?) in regard to the very real experience she had with vertigo, a terrible affliction she endured constantly for four months. She explained her feelings of disorientation and desperation as nothing in her world was ever still. One doctor even suggested she have the nerves to her ears cut. It would leave her deaf, but that might be preferable to trying to live with vertigo, he said. But, he added, there was no guarantee this drastic measure would cure her affliction. She told how she suddenly understood why some people decide to commit suicide, and was afraid she might descend into a state where she might make that decision. She told how she cried out to God for help, how He helped, how she clung to God's promises in the Bible, and, as a result, how she came to write—in about seventeen days flat—what has become known as Exalting His Word. That's how I remember things anyway. I thought it was quite a testimony. It oriented me to see good in this book, if not perfection of argument. (I don't recollect any mention of the word rhema in this interview.) God speaks through providences. But it is certainly wisdom to double check all providences by the Bible.

[Brick Step]

Brick Step, I am extremely leery of accepting spiritual teachings on the basis of such miracles.

You see, Satan and his demons can also work miracles. And the affliction from which Shelley Quinn suffered and was the delivered sounds like a fairly simple one to bring on by someone who is intelligent about the biochemical make-up of the human brain. IOW, it would be easy enough for Satan to bring on the affliction and then work a "miracle" to deliver her from it for the precise purpose of introducing false teachings.

In fact, there are many miracles in the world today to back up blatantly false teachings. Just because the "miracle" happened to a professing Adventist does not prove that God was the one providing the miracle nor that He intended to confirm her teaching which is not biblical. God does not change; thus He never contradicts the message of His own word (i.e. the Bible).

Disclaimer: I am not saying that this did happen to Shelly Quinn. I am only saying that it would be easy enough for Satan to do and that we should not give her teachings any more credence than we normally would because of such "miracles."

Thank you Inga, and for making the point so clearly and graciously. You are absolutely right. I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm glad you drew further attention to the fact that every apparent providence or miracle must be judged by the Bible. I never believed otherwise, but am not all the way with processing the facts on Shelley's story and book.

[Brick Step]

I am just concerned not to leave behind any wrong impression about miracles and the workings of Providence. The cautions against them are absolutely necessary and are given all over the Bible and writings of Ellen White. Revelation prophesies and warns concerning “the spirits of devils, working miracles.” Revelation 16:14. But on the other side of things, to pray to the living God at all is to expect He will hear, respond, and enable us to recognize His responses. If we as needy sheep cannot pray to the Shepherd we are counselled to follow, and know He will enable us to discern His voice from that of the devil and his agents, then God is dead and Christianity a sham.

On the question of providences and miracles, inspiration just as surely sounds a warning voice on the other side of the matter. Could I draw attention again to the following quotes.

(Please:- In reminding of these quotes, I am not asserting a specific application. I am pointing to principles.)

“The spirit of irreverent curiosity [such as led the Israelites at Beth-shemesh to lift the coverings off the Ark of the Covenant which had just been returned by the Philistines, resulting in the deaths of many] still exists among the children of men. Many are eager to investigate those mysteries which infinite wisdom has seen fit to leave unrevealed. Having no reliable evidence from which to reason, they base their theories on conjecture. The Lord has wrought for his servants and for the upbuilding of his cause at the present day as verily as he wrought in behalf of ancient Israel; but vain philosophy, "science falsely so called," has sought to destroy faith in the direct interposition of Providence, attributing all such manifestations to natural causes. This is the sophistry of Satan. He is asserting his authority by mighty signs and wonders in the earth. Those who ignore or deny the special evidences of God's power, are preparing the way for the arch-deceiver to exalt himself before the people as superior to the God of Israel.

“Many accept the reasoning of these would-be wise men as truth, when in fact it undermines the very foundations which God has laid. Such teachers are the ones described by inspiration, who must become fools in their own estimation, that they may be wise. God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. By those who are guided only by human wisdom, the simplicity of his mighty workings is called foolishness. They think themselves wiser than their Creator, when in fact they are victims of finite ignorance and childish conceit. It is this that holds them in the darkness of unbelief, so that they do not discern the power of God, and tremble before him.” Signs of the Times, 19 January 1882.

“Here we see that the church--the Lord's sanctuary--was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. They had taken the position that we need not look for miracles and the marked manifestation of God's power as in former days….” Testimonies, Vol 5, p. 211.

“He [Christ] taught them to behold Him as manifested in His works, in His word, and by His providences.” Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 23.

There is just no escaping the need for serious Bible study by anyone hoping to exercise an intelligent faith, and avoid Satan’s final, overmastering deceptions. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17.

It is also true “There are hard texts in the works as well as the word of God.” (Said by the Puritan reformer, John Flavel, in his wonderful book, The Mystery of Providence, p.118.)

[inga]

Brick, thanks for your reply.

I am just concerned not to leave behind any wrong impression about miracles and the workings of Providence. The cautions against them are absolutely necessary and are given all over the Bible and writings of Ellen White. Revelation prophesies and warns concerning “the spirits of devils, working miracles.” Revelation 16:14. But on the other side of things, to pray to the living God at all is to expect He will hear, respond, and enable us to recognize His responses. If we as needy sheep cannot pray to the Shepherd we are counselled to follow, and know He will enable us to discern His voice from that of the devil and his agents, then God is dead and Christianity a sham.

I agree absolutely that God is as willing to work miracles now as He ever was. In fact, I have personal knowledge of a number of distinct divine interventions in the lives of those close to me.

However, I do not take that as evidence that whatever the recipients of divine intervention teach is directly from God. The written word of God is the standard by which all further "revelations" or "teachings" must be judged -- including the apparently attractive teachings of Shelley Quinn.

If she were, indeed, a special mouth piece for God, I would hardly expect her to make such utterly wrongful statements about Danny Shelton (favorable), Linda Shelton (unfavorable) and Alyssa Moore (downright slanderous). The teaching that the end justifies the means is not in my Bible, but I wonder if it's something that Shelley Quinn believes in.

As for His sheep knowing His voice -- I have no inside track on knowing who are truly His sheep and who are only dressed up as sheep. I do have my Bible and the Spirit of God to guide me and give me discernment in the matter of distinguishing truth from error.

This post has been edited by inga: Oct 10 2007, 11:06 PM

[SoulEspresso]

As for His sheep knowing His voice -- I have no inside track on knowing who are truly His sheep and who are only dressed up as sheep. I do have my Bible and the Spirit of God to guide me and give me discernment in the matter of distinguishing truth from error.

You've got everything you need, IOW ...