# Rhema/Logos



## D. Paul (Aug 4, 2005)

Though improbable, if any one else here has ever sat through numerous Word of Faith sermons, have you ever heard them make a distinction between Rhema and Logos? These will be defined as:
Logos is God's spoken word in general. Rhema is when it is revealed unto the believer. 
So I guess there is a mystical occurrence when reading the mere words to when we actually come to "understand" them so that the Logos _*becomes*_ Rhema; Rhema being the "higher form". I see no such distinction or application but I still have friends who use the terms in this way. What can I say other than the two words basically mean the same and that it is the Spirit who gives "life" to the Word?


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 4, 2005)

Donald,

From 1982 through 1986 I sat through a number or "Word of Faith" messages in various Charismatic Churches. Speakers included Kenneth Hagin, Derek Prince (not completely WOF but still within the bounds for this discussion), R.W. Shambach, and several other "second & third rung" teachers, faith-healers, and other assorted hucksters.  Sometimes for "amusment" I watch the antics of the more modern guys on TV.

Their distinctions between _*Rhema*_ and _*Logos*_ are generally exaggerated and "derived" to support the chief WOF premise: that is the believer's empowerment to "speak the Word of Faith" and get similar results to the miracles Jesus did when He "just spoke the word". Of course this premise is most founded upon "religious fantasy" and a sincere, but often very misguided understanding of the Holy Spirit's operation in the Church today. For example, most, if not all of these folk completely reject the notion that God is sovereign His children's sickness, finances, or other trying situations. In this respect they certain twist the Scriptures ... It should also be noted that probably not 1 in 1000 of these guys has any credible understanding of Hebrew or Greek. Most that I knew 15-20 years ago had little more than a "Strongs/Vines" understanding of the Biblical Languages and what's more most of their followers consider this to be bona-fide "scholarship".

I would study all occurances of the two Greek works _*Rhema*_ and _*Logos*_ and their surrounding context in the N.T. (and possibly the LXX). Does the context support the "mystical distinction" that the WOF crowd majors upon?

In closing, I do believe that it is important to focus more on the people and than the abberant doctrines when dealing with WOF congregants (the preachers are another story - they need to be confronted directly with their error). The reason I say this is that many who are very sick, handicapped, etc. turn to the WOF movements as a "last resort" for their pain and human suffering. They are often very wounded and therefore quite defensive about what they believe. It takes great patience and gentleness to show them that God is completely sovereign in all situations.


----------



## D. Paul (Aug 4, 2005)

_"Their distinctions between *Rhema* and *Logos* are generally exaggerated and "derived" to support the chief WOF premise: that is the believer's empowerment to "speak the Word of Faith" and get similar results to the miracles Jesus did when He "just spoke the word". "_


Exactly. So it becomes almost blasphemous for anyone to question this concept, which makes it more difficult to discuss with my friends. 

Your further comments regarding the "preacher"/congregation is of utmost importance. Our issue is not with those being duped. For them we have the greatest compassion. For their "teachers", the greatest disdain.

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by D. Paul]


----------

