Talk:Rhema (doctrine)

Possible interchangeability in terms
It seems that the point of this doctrine is to answer how a Christian believer internalizes the teachings of Christianity so they become real, and able to be lived out for them. A doctrine that considers the process of how the text of the Bible is internalized in Christians. So the separation of text from "living word" is made. If this is correct it seems some other Christian groups flip the terminology around holding that rhema is dead text until it gets supernaturally activated into logos.


 * For example this quote from:
 * "Bible Believers' Newsletter 622"
 * Entitled "We focus on the present Truth – what Jesus is doing now. . ."
 * Found at http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl622.htm


 * "Our main article, written in 1983 by Chicago pastor Alfred RAA Olsen with our additions, distinguishes the rhema, gamma or 'letter' of the spoken or written word "which without the Spirit kills," from the logos or understanding of the thought expressed by the same Word quickened by God's Life-giving Spirit (II Corinthians 3:6).


 * This essential teaching is timely in these closing hours of the Gentile dispensation when everyone within the circle of this Message has heard, read, and even memorized the rhema of the Prophet as Caiaphas, priests, Levites and the believers of Jesus' day had heard, read and could recite the rhema of Moses and the prophets, but without the Spirit to impart the logos they murdered their very Messiah! And only a precious few believers see the logos of Brother Branham's Message.


 * Just this morning I received an outrageous email from a Brother with absolutely no revelation of the Message, the Bible or historical fact; he made egregious, dishonest, unsupported and self-righteous accusations all because he has read the rhema, gamma or "letter" of the Bible, the Message and the filtered lies of history without respect to the admonitions of Jesus and Paul to 'prove all things, hold fast that which is good,' and Brother Branham to 'treat me like the Dutchman, take me for what I mean and not what I say.'


 * Paul explained such people "have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, not having submitted themselves to the righteousness of God" measured by faith (Romans 10:2-3). The Prophet explained the foolish virgin are without the Spirit, either because they were dilatory and neglected the admonition of those noble Bereans to graduate from the rhema to the logos, which is the mind of God, or because their pastor and those with whom they spoke did not possess the Spirit to introduce the logos that they might be born-again."

Here it would seem that they are holding logos as activated word and rhema as text, listing it alongside gamma -- (perhaps confusing rhema as a letter of the Greek alphabet as gamma is?). Not sure how common this is but mention it here for others to be aware of. --Wowaconia (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation of GotQuestions
Self-published information is not automatically barred from Wikipedia as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA.

The subject of the article is one of religion/metaphysics that can not be objectively proved by any neutral editor.

The article has presented, at length, theologians putting forward positive claims about Rhema doctrine, neutrality requires noting negative claims by opposing theologians.

The author of the self-published GotQuestions is not presented in the article as putting forward objective fact but of putting forward his own opinion. That author is an unquestionable authority about what his own opinion is.

If one wants to hold that the author's opinion is wrong and is therefore unreliable than one must explain how they can unbiasedly prove questions of metaphysics.

The inclusion of the quote is presented to not take sides on the matter and maintain neutrality within the article.

---Wowaconia (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That author is a nobody who writes for a user-generated website. At least if he would represent the Southern Baptist Church, he would be quoted on behalf of Southern Baptists. But as such, he is an authority in nothing and he represents nobody.


 * See Talk:Jesus/Archive 127.


 * As you perhaps know, Christians are not allowed to tell lies, so an explicitly non-denominational website cannot speak on behalf of the Baptist Church. As long as they wear the non-denominational hat, they may represent no church and they do not speak for any church. It's heresy that a bunch of non-denominational Christians would represent the Baptist Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources for a possible rewrite of this article
Just a few that I quickly found. I did find a lot of self-published material, but these sources seem to meet WP:RS which I'd argue many of the ones used do not. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia standards allow for citations of people's online work to represent their own thought.
 * WP:ABOUTSELF All the sources you deleted began by citing the author who presented them. The quotes present them as the thoughts of that author and those who follow that author's ministry.


 * By your logic we can not quote the online catechism of the Catholic Church as authoritative for the Catholic Church because its published by the Catholic Church. That's not the Wikipedia standard.
 * --Wowaconia (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We do WP:CITE the Catholic Catechism as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for the Catholic Church. gotquestions.org is nobody's catechism. We just don't WP:CITE WP:RANDY.


 * See Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible/Archive 1 and Talk:Jesus/Archive 127 and User talk:Dethbethlehem and Talk:Hillsong Church


 * He, himself, on his own, tell us that his own view is WP:Notable. But why would we believe him on his word of honor? According to WP:NOTFREESPEECH and other WP:RULES, we only render the views of scholars and of representatives of big social, cultural, political or religious groups. He is neither.


 * Your criterion of WP:N would be a random priest or pastor published that in WP:SPS. That's not gonna fly. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph/section doesn't explain what "rhema" means
A better initial summary is needed for skim-readers! 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:154A:3EB4:5E46:ABB0 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)