Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
The reason people bring up the “humanity” in this context is because this is what Lee taught and they believe it.
Lee said, This ointment signifies God, who is triune, after a long process becoming the all-inclusive compound Spirit to reach His chosen and redeemed people to be one with them...
It is not sufficient to be impressed with this matter in a doctrinal way. We need to pray, “Lord, show me the vision of the all-inclusive Spirit. Show me that today You are the all-inclusive Spirit compounded of divinity, humanity, incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Lord, I need to see that Your uplifted humanity, Your all-inclusive, wonderful and mysterious death, and Your indescribable resurrection have been compounded into the Spirit.” If we see this vision, we shall pray, “Lord, I thank You that the Spirit is now the compound Spirit. This all-inclusive life-giving Spirit is the Triune God Himself reaching me, anointing me, making Himself one with me, and making me one with Him."
Every one who embraced this teaching came to believe that Christ’s “humanity” (among other things) got added to the Spirit by Christ's death and resurrection. After hearing the constant repetition and indoctrination by Lee they became convinced that this was the only way/reason they could experience God. Arizona made this clear in (his/her?) last post. (Sorry, Arizona, I haven’t been following everything close enough to know which gender…).
People who believe this are actually saying that unless something was added to God He couldn't save them! This is not supported by the Bible. In fact it flies in the face of what Christ did as the Lamb of God. God tabernacled in the flesh. According to Hebrews 5, the flesh was the body God prepared through the virgin birth so Christ could do the Father's will and die on the cross for us. Salvation is dependent on Christ dying as the Lamb of God. Period. That one act was the pivotal point in all history.
Jesus came to save us from our sins. And that salvation includes more than initial forgiveness. Having been saved by his death, we are now being saved by His life. His life is the Spirit of God that we now have access to because of the payment of our debt. This Spirit is not a new version or model of the Spirit of God. Did God needed improvement? Was He inadequate?
What we experienced at the time of our salvation was the Spirit of God, not an upgraded model!
The Bible clearly says that the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead (gave Him life) dwells in us to give us life. It is the same Spirit. (Romans 8:11)
Once you take the step that Lee took to believe that something could be added to God to make something that never existed before in the universe, there is no end to where you can go with this. You will soon be convinced you are becoming God. Why not? What is to stop such a thought and progression? If God can have things added to Him that weren’t there before and those things become God, then you can be added and become God, too. Sound familiar? Before long, the Lamb of God is lost in the dust of man glorying in becoming God.
The value of the Lamb of God is overshadowed by this teaching in the world of Lee, making this teaching something higher and more important than Christ and His redemptive act. The gospel is that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to die for our sins. This is the gospel we preach, not the gospel of the processed Triune God. This is Lee's gospel and He put it above the Lamb of God in importance. How awful that is.
Thankful Jane
|
Jane:
I know that we have traversed this terrain before. And I've experienced enough to know that my thick-skull requires me to continue traversing it - even hearing the same answers in return - in order to learn...
I was taken aback by this last post, however. Your post centered on one central theme about those who buy into - to whatever extent - the idea of a "processed" God (though I really don't know if I like that language). The implication from your post is that these folks think God is "inadequate." And God needed an "upgrade." And all sorts of other truely abismal views that Christians shouldn't ever ever have and how ridiculous and absurd and hubristic and small such a view is. That's how the post reads. But that is an unfair reading of those (some) who agree, to whatever extent, with the "processed" GOd (again, really don't care for the language).
I have a hard time with this kind of reasoning. It creates a false choice: either agree with me or you think God is inadequate. That may be the choice that my beliefs create and thus is good cause to vigorously reexamine my beliefs. But I hold the beliefs you say create this choice, and yet I don't view God as inadequate in any way. And I certainly don't see myself denegrating Christ's death on my behalf. In fact, I feel that every interation I have in my life, in my family, in my "church life" in my every interaction with God - it revolves around my need for a Savior and ever comes back to His death and resurrection. I don't think its impossible to hold both beliefs...
Perhaps I should have begun with this: “processed,” “added” and all this language can cause God’s beautiful work to be morphed into a “science of dispensing.” It can divert attention from God’s pivotal redemptive act and reduce His desire to walk with us to a process of “intake.” This is an important caution. Keep repeating it over and again. Please.
But the historical fact that some people have been sucked in by a language and an unhealthy emphasis does not automatically negate any and all things they saw as truth in the Word.
Why didn’t God just go ahead and redeem us, without sending His Son? Was He incapable and “inadequate”? Why was Jesus tempted by the devil before He could be the worthy Lamb? Was He “inadequate” or was that episode just for our reading pleasure?
I’ll go further: why the need for the re-birth? Why wasn’t Christ’s death on the Cross sufficient? It gave me access back to God just as Enoch had. With the Scripture, I also have the Word of God which contains the pattern of Christ, which I can imitate. Why the need for re-birth by the Spirit? And, by the way, in that re-birth, who indwells me? The Spirit or Christ? Or the Spirit of Christ? Or the….
For the record, these aren’t just questions in the wind. The Word has some things to say about them – even if it leaves some things a mystery. Asking these questions doesn’t require creating a “science of God.” It doesn’t require everything to be reduced to little morsels to “intake”. Lee can still be wrong, even if there is something to “humanity” being “added” to God (but really, there needs to be a more Scriptural articulation)
And, importantly, asking these questions, and finding some tentative answers in the Word does not necessarily create a slippery slope (e.g. “if you believe that, what’s next – there’s no telling what you’ll end up believing” – as your post implies). Our inquiry is governed by the Word. I believe something because I believe the Word teaches it. Yes, I still have many many years of being Lee-colored glasses to wrestle with, but God has been faithful to show me that I can be freed from those glasses and return to His word. So, the notion that my beliefs will be unrestrained if I “open a door,” is not fair – they will be restrained because the Word circumscribes my inquiries – even when I stray now and again.
Its not fair to ask, since these boards are all about Lee, but I will ask anyway:
Can we discuss this topic with having to defend the extremes of Lee?
In Love,
Peter
p.s. that does not mean I don't have a lot in which to be corrected in this conversation, I am just trying to address the foundation of the conversation (Lee-based or regardless-of-Lee).