tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post5539558111659914163..comments2023-06-28T10:53:49.922+01:00Comments on david derbyshire's blog: have we misunderstood the word ‘rhema’?David Derbyshirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02715605705855244058noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-72188272279853313412011-02-15T03:09:20.101+00:002011-02-15T03:09:20.101+00:00Today I looked up all the references to "rhem...Today I looked up all the references to "rhema" in the NT and found that almost all the references were connected to external or audible expressions of logos. The only two exceptions were references connected to John the Baptist receiving the rhema in the wilderness and Simeon at the temple (where He held Jesus up), where it seems they were impressed to go to the places the Spirit said to go and when. I'm just cracking this study open, but I wonder if the references to God speaking rhema in situations like John and Simeon are in the forms of impressions and always lead to a call to ministry, conviction of sin, or a strong word of instruction/rebuke that someone might need to hear, like Nathan to David, but not in reference to life enhancement or "give to this ministry" stuff that we often see on television. In either case, the rhema to John and Simeon led to an encounter with Jesus and the furthering of the gospel. Do you think criteria such as that might be a good way for a person to test supposed rhema? We can test potential rhema from God by knowing that it cannot violate clear teachings of Scripture and be from the Spirit of God, but maybe also by our mpressions leading us to ministry, etc, and always to an encounter with furthering the gospel. Then we can be confident we have heard from the Spirit and not our own thoughts/impressions/emotions. Cherish you thoughts.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00154450292938693706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-88583587094204726642009-08-17T13:01:40.990+01:002009-08-17T13:01:40.990+01:00I always thought this quote from A.W. Tozer, in Th...I always thought this quote from A.W. Tozer, in <i>The Pursuit of God</i>, was great:<br /><br />The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God.<br /><br />Dave, you just finished The Blue Parakeet. I am sure you liked it. I read it a few months back and posted a little review on the book:<br /><br />http://www.prodigalthought.com/2009/04/blue-parakeet.htmlScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14809415435911315621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-55894644172775588902009-08-14T10:15:43.007+01:002009-08-14T10:15:43.007+01:00Aaron, I’m glad you found the article interesting ...Aaron, I’m glad you found the article interesting and educational. Yes, I think if you have a good grasp of scripture it becomes clear that the words are interchangeable and that this distinction is just a theory not borne out by the Bible. <br /><br />Deb, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Logos refers to Jesus. We touched on this last year when our church studied the Awareness Course. We said that the Bible points us to Jesus who is the Word of God - he is our ultimate authority. I think you would have enjoyed that course. Also I think you would enjoy Blue Parakeet, which I have just finished.David Derbyshirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02715605705855244058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-36527773336555084582009-08-14T05:27:14.773+01:002009-08-14T05:27:14.773+01:00Very interesting, Dave. I actually am not as fami...Very interesting, Dave. I actually am not as familiar with the charismatic usage of "logos" versus "rhema," so this was just educational for me on the whole. But it certainly seems like the article is right to point out the words are used interchangeably.<br /><br />The whole "positive confessions" stuff is definitely going a bit far, though. I would certainly be "post-charismatic" in this sense, that I critique the charismatic church for having zero discernment, and zero appreciation for proper theology, despite the fact that I would still call myself a charismatic (or Pentecostal).<br /><br />Thanks for the insight!Aaron Rathburnhttp://theologyandculture.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-62889830920881740402009-08-13T21:03:19.887+01:002009-08-13T21:03:19.887+01:00I don't know about "rhema"but my und...I don't know about "rhema"but my understanding was that "logos" is a much bigger concept than just the written word. After all the whole of the Gospel of John's Prologue is devoted to the idea of Jesus as the "Logos" of God. <br /><br />And I've not heard of this distinction being made between the two but it doesn't sound like someone coming up with a fancy theory which is just not borne out by what is there in scripture. <br /><br />Also, when Biblical writers refer to "Scripture" or "the written word of God" or whatever- aren't they generally referring to the Torah or just the Hebrew Bible anyway? It's never clear that you can apply it to every book of the New Testament, is it?Deb Curnockhttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=870055651&ref=profilenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-35828839946160258672009-08-13T17:22:40.906+01:002009-08-13T17:22:40.906+01:00Thanks for those comments. It's encouraging th...Thanks for those comments. It's encouraging that we appear to be thinking along similar lines.<br /><br />Interestingly McAlpine indicates that the use of RHEMA is wider than WOF. I don’t think that using this word necessarily means accepting positive confession. And I don’t think he is denying that God can speak to us by the Holy Spirit drawing our attention to a scripture. <br /><br />Having looked at these passages I am tending to think that it is just unhelpful to refer to this as a RHEMA word.David Derbyshirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02715605705855244058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-36183283215407816972009-08-13T16:02:35.721+01:002009-08-13T16:02:35.721+01:00I have become more aware that the two words - logo...I have become more aware that the two words - logos and rhema - are not so distinguishable as we charismatics have made them out to be in the past. They seem to be interchangeable, as you show in your post.<br /><br />But I would also note that these two words do not usually refer to a 'written' form of God's word. Without my Bible study tools in front of me, I believe they both refer to a more 'spoken' word/message of God. It is the word graphe that refers more to things written.<br /><br />Still, a good evangelical will tell you that the logos and rhema word ultimately was to become Scripture. Thus, the full canon of Scripture is now the reality of the logos and rhema of God. But, from my understanding, that seems just as forced. Of course, common sense tells us that everything spoken was not actually recorded in Scripture. Scripture only consists of portions of what was first spoken (as some of it is summary statements). It is a good and helpful portion of all that God has ever spoken through His people, but not the full record of God's logos/rhema.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14809415435911315621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16577389.post-63939401906511637392009-08-12T16:40:59.464+01:002009-08-12T16:40:59.464+01:00I've always been a bit sceptical about the str...I've always been a bit sceptical about the strong distinction made by the WOF people. This began years ago when I noticed that Mat 26:75 and Mk 14:72 both use RHEMA for 'Peter remembered the WORD Jesus had said', while Luke 22:61 uses LOGOS. Again, in Eph 5:26 believers are cleansed 'with the washing of water by the RHEMA.' In Jn 15:3 believers are 'clean through the LOGOS.' Sadly, though they are utterly sincere, WOF Christians, for the most part, are poor in their grasp of Scripture. They tend to make everything fit a 'scheme'. That scheme teaches you the techniques for manipulating God, and at the same time regiments the Bible to fit the scheme. So it sounds as if the article you quote in spot on, Dave.David Matthewhttp://www.davidmatthew.org.uknoreply@blogger.com