Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

AG Says the Rhema/Logos Distinction CAN NOT be Supported by Biblical Evidence
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post AG Says the Rhema/Logos Distinction CAN NOT be Supported by Biblical Evidence Old Time Country Preacher
One of the favorite concepts of woffie teaching, an a lot of COG/AG boys is this purported difference between Logos and Rhema and how they are treated in the Bible. That is, Logos is the "written word" and Rhema is the "spoken word," or that Logos is a general word while Rhema is a more specific word and that somehow Rhema is more desirable.

True, they are different terms. But the purported distinction tween the two is not biblical. In the official statement of the AG entitled "The Believer and Positive Confession (1980:19), it reads "The distinction is not justified either in the Greek New Testament or in the Septuagint. The words are used synonymously in both. The distinctions between logos and rhema cannot be sustained by biblical evidence.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15480
9/17/16 9:07 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post link to pdf bonnie knox
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4183_confession.pdf [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 10:02 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Hogwash Aaron Scott
I don't care how many theologians sign on, there IS a difference!

When Peter received the vision from the Lord about clean/unclean, there was nothing in the "written scriptures" to clearly support that.

There was nothing in the scriptures to support Paul knowing that the everyone on board would survive. After all, plenty of good folks before him had died serving the Lord.

There IS a difference. The written words, when God touches them, become THE WORD OF GOD. Before that, it's ink on a page. Great reading...but little more until the Lord quickens it.

But there are some things that God gives to you that are not at all clear from scripture--though such a word would not be at odds with scripture, since God would not make that mistake.

Here's the thing: If it was right there in the written word, everyone, saint, sinner, agnostic, pagan, heathen, and atheist, could see it and know it. But there are deeper things not only in the WRITTEN WORD, but also things given to us fresh from heaven.

The scriptures have not ceased to be written. They are STILL being written, even though we will never accept them as canon. There is no reason to think they have ceased! That is just another form of cessation, I believe.

But like all scripture before it, it too must align with what God has already laid down.

Glad I'm part of the CHURCH OF GOD and not the ASSEMBLY OF GOD.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4937
9/17/16 12:08 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hogwash Old Time Country Preacher
Aaron Scott wrote:
I don't care how many theologians sign on, there IS a difference!


Herein lies the sadness of ALL error, whether WOF or any other type. When given the historical, theological and exegetical evidence to the contrary, they scream (whether audibly or in their heart) HOGWASH. It's true because either:

1. I say so.

2. I believe it.

3. My favorite preacher/teacher taught it this way.

4. It fits within my theological system.

5. God revealed it to me.

Course, the Mormons, JW's, an ever other cult says the same thing.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15480
9/17/16 12:18 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hogwash Old Time Country Preacher
Aaron Scott wrote:
The written words, when God touches them, become THE WORD OF GOD. Before that, it's ink on a page. Great reading...but little more until the Lord quickens it.

The scriptures have not ceased to be written. They are STILL being written, even though we will never accept them as canon. There is no reason to think they have ceased! That is just another form of cessation, I believe.


Aaron, I truly hope you speak in jest in the statements above. If you do indeed believe what you have written above, I understand fully why you are most always at odds with OTCP's posts.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15480
9/17/16 12:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Ole Timer, Aaron used to go on about that the same way you do about honorary doctorates. I kinda hope you don't get him started again. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 1:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Patrick Harris
If you're referring to the Canon of Scripture being closed then I'm with Aaron, I've seen no scriptural evidence that the Canon is closed.

Unless you want to consider John Macarthur a source of Biblical knowledge.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1248
9/17/16 5:14 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post As I stated in the thread this came from brotherjames
I humbly Disagree and I have voiced my disagreements to a couple of the writers of the mentioned position paper. As an official in the AG this paper is an "official position paper" (white paper) of the Assemblies of God. It was written in 1980 as a response to some of the more outrageous teachings of the Word of Faith claims regarding positive confession that were then circulating among many of that movements adherents if not from all the teachers of the movement. The Rhema vs Logos comments were more of an aside and were NOT the main thrust of the paper. The two words are NOT used interchangeably in scripture hence my argument with the writers. They mean two different things - ie. Rhema a spoken word (living) vs Logos the written word. If you take a deeper look at the usage you will clearly see the distinctions and the inferences drawn. Frankly it isn't that big a deal. THe main difference is found when a word spoken by God from His mouth is made and it is then understood as a Rhema (a living word spoken by God to man that must come to pass).

In addition, as an Assemblies of God ordained minister and former official, this paper states an opinion of certain authors and is held as the position of the AG but it is not binding upon me nor do I have to agree with it. I whole heartily disagree, have made my reasons known to the authors and others using scholarly exegesis and we agree to disagree.

OTCP wants to use this as a club but if you read the paper fully you will see much more about the faulty name it and claim it of the 80's than the issue of rhema or logos but it still is just the opinion (scholars all) of a few with an pre-set agenda to accomplish.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 814
9/17/16 6:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: As I stated in the thread this came from Old Time Country Preacher
brotherjames wrote:
I humbly Disagree and I have voiced my disagreements to a couple of the writers of the mentioned position paper. As an official in the AG this paper is an "official position paper" (white paper) of the Assemblies of God. It was written in 1980 as a response to some of the more outrageous teachings of the Word of Faith claims regarding positive confession that were then circulating among many of that movements adherents if not from all the teachers of the movement. The Rhema vs Logos comments were more of an aside and were NOT the main thrust of the paper. The two words are NOT used interchangeably in scripture hence my argument with the writers. They mean two different things - ie. Rhema a spoken word (living) vs Logos the written word. If you take a deeper look at the usage you will clearly see the distinctions and the inferences drawn. Frankly it isn't that big a deal. THe main difference is found when a word spoken by God from His mouth is made and it is then understood as a Rhema (a living word spoken by God to man that must come to pass).

In addition, as an Assemblies of God ordained minister and former official, this paper states an opinion of certain authors and is held as the position of the AG but it is not binding upon me nor do I have to agree with it. I whole heartily disagree, have made my reasons known to the authors and others using scholarly exegesis and we agree to disagree.

OTCP wants to use this as a club but if you read the paper fully you will see much more about the faulty name it and claim it of the 80's than the issue of rhema or logos but it still is just the opinion (scholars all) of a few with an pre-set agenda to accomplish.


No James, I have no club. Woffies make much of the term "rhema," far more than scripture makes of it. Some folk is always seekin a rhema. Here a word, there a word, everwhere a word word. Runnin after a word. Askin fer a word. Hey, if folk would stay in the written word they would git more rhema than they would ever know what to do with.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15480
9/17/16 7:00 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post can you tell without looking up the Greek? bonnie knox
Without looking up the Greek, can you tell me whether word in this verse would be from logos or rhema?

Matthew 8:8
The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

What about this?
Matthew 8:16
When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:


Last edited by bonnie knox on 9/17/16 7:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 7:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post One more thing brotherjames
The Word of God whether meaning Rhema or Logos is verbally inspired, infallible and both terms do describe God's Word. The main difference is more subtle than that.

I will admit some of the proponents of the Word of Faith teaching have gone farther afield than I in this area and some have taken things out of context to the extreme. That's OTCP's problem. All he can see is the forest of heresy and he can't discern any trees of truth in the forest.

As Pentecostal Christians, who are filled with and supposedly led by the Spirit of Christ, we can be given a Word directly spoken from God's mouth to our ears or Spirit man. It can happen as we read the written (logos) Word of God as a particular passage leaps off the page to us and becomes alive or God by His Spirit says to us, "THis promise is for you now". Then, that logos has just become Rhema (a living Word spoken from the mouth of God to us) IT becomes a NOW word, a word from God that we cling to knowing no word to us from God can ever fail. It can come prophetically as well.

This is and was the teaching of most of the teachers in the WOF movement but it got subverted by some who misused and abused and twisted things out of context to suit their own goals and agendas. The writers of the position paper were addressing abuses and missed the subtleties of the the truth being espoused.

You can disagree but I resent the implication of the Headline in the OP which implies something more than was actually addressed in the paper and the fact that not everyone in the AG at that time or now agrees.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 814
9/17/16 7:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post brotherjames, bonnie knox
We were posting at the same time. I do hope you will try the little exercise I posted above. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 7:06 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Your exercise Bonnie brotherjames
in the Mat. 8:8 verse think of it this way. Here is a word (logos). It has meaning. But, when Jesus speaks it, it becomes Rhema (spoken living utterance). Until He speaks it to the centurion it is just a word in the ether or on a page. In the Bible it is inspired and true and even pregnant (filled with promise) but when spoken the word comes to life - it is birthed and as it is spoken by God or spoken as a word from God (prophecy) it canot fail. THat freshly spoken word of the Lord that cannot fail to come to pass I spoke of before (Luke 1:37 nothing doesn't mean no thing but no rhema - with God no rhema is impossible). Until spoken or until laid hold of and birthed to you as truth it remains logos. WHen birthed it becomes living - rhema.

In your Matt. 8:17 I would suggest to you that is a bad translation as Jesus SPOKE the word of healing and deliverance to the people. It was a rhema word a spoken word. You could also read it as the logos was spoken but when the logos is spoken it became alive (rhema) and accomplished the purpose for which it was sent. IT's not that big a deal.

My main point about Rhema is that when God speaks personally to you it is a Rhema - a living word you can hang onto and stake your life on. You can do that with the written word too as we do when we read the Bible as truth. But, if you have ever had a word come to you prophetically or leap off the page and become real to you by the Holy Spirit you would see what I mean.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 814
9/17/16 7:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: One more thing Old Time Country Preacher
brotherjames wrote:
I resent the implication of the Headline in the OP which implies something more than was actually addressed in the paper and the fact that not everyone in the AG at that time or now agrees.


The implication of the headline is exactly what it is. The AG, in an official position paper, states that 12the rhema/logos distinction cannot be supported by biblical evidence. I didn't make that up or take it out of context.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15480
9/17/16 7:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Wow. Just wow. If the Textus Receptus doesn't fit your theory, you say it is a bad translation? Wow. I think I'm beginning to see what you mean when you say the men writing the official AG paper used "faulty exegesis."
Quote:

In your Matt. 8:17 (sic) I would suggest to you that is a bad translation as Jesus SPOKE the word of healing and deliverance to the people. It was a rhema word a spoken word. You could also read it as the logos was spoken but when the logos is spoken it became alive (rhema) and accomplished the purpose for which it was sent.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 7:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post In the ether just might be the problem bonnie knox
Quote:
Until He speaks it to the centurion it is just a word in the ether or on a page.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 7:31 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Yes but you Capitalized CAN NOT brotherjames
and for the record YOU CAN. Many Disagree.

PS the main criticism my friends were addressing was the false teaching (and may I say I NEVER EVER heard it taught by Hagin or anyone else - so not sur where the idea sprang from) was that Rhema words were somehow superior to logos words of God. I don't believe that nor as I said did I ever hear that taught by any reputable (is that a oxymoron to you OTCP) WoF teacher.

All scripture is inspired and is the Word of God to us. THe difference I have found is when a prophetic word or scripture becomes alive to an individual. They can hang onto any word of God as truth but certain scriptures are more alive to them than others.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 814
9/17/16 7:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Is there ANY scriptural basis for the theory that when a word "comes alive" to someone it becomes rhema? [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 7:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
When I attended a Baptist church in my growing up years, we sang "Standing On the Promises." We stood on those promises by faith and by the witness of the Holy Spirit. Not ever having heard the word "rhema" was not a hindrance to believing that God's promises were sure. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/17/16 7:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Most scholars will say brotherjames
logos and rhema are synonyms. And in the septuagint the word for "word" in Hebrew is Dabar and when translated to Greek sometimes logos was used and sometimes rhema was used. This was the thrust of the position paper from the AG as well.

However, while admittedly on a shaky foundation (see how transparent I am?) there appears to some (me included) that there are times when the word Rhema is used in a more meaningful way than just "word". Especially in the letter to the Hebrews, Rhema is used to mean a direct word from God. And in Eohesians 6 the sword of the Spirit is the word (rhema) of God. If God wanted us to only know logos, why use Rhema at all? Translators were often unclear which to use or used them interchangeably - that's the problem and thought the original manuscripts are correct some of the translations were often mis-copied.

To answer your last question: in Matt 4:4 when Jesus responds to the devil's temptation to turn rocks to bread, Jesus says, "Man does not live by bread (food) alone but by EVERY WORD (rhema) that PROCEEDS (travels from) from the mouth of God". What does that mean? To me it means ALL the Word (logos) should train me, direct me and inspire me BUT a "rhema" word is something more to me. It is God given directly to me and for me for such a time as this. Theologically it might be less than correct, (not in my opinion) but to me it means everything.

PS not knowing the word Rhema exists is immaterial to the fact that you were given one that you held onto , stood upon for that need. IT was alive to you from God. It was a Rhema whether you knew it or not.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 814
9/17/16 8:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.