[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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...

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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 bothbeliefs...

Good afternoon, Peter,

I’m sorry, if my post came across as with “either agree with me or you think God is inadequate” as its message to you. It surprised me that this is what you got from what I wrote.

I admit my tone was too strong for the general audience. I have been round this table before with Paul M so I’m sure my escalated rhetoric had its roots in that. Unfortunately on a public forum this affects others. Sorry. I am not suggesting that every one who believes some version of the processed God teaching denigrates the value of the Lamb, etc. I quoted what Lee said about this (in another post) which shows that He, however, did do this.

My point was that I believe God is innately adequate, therefore, He doesn’t need something added to Him. This is how I read the Bible. Lee says:

“This all-inclusive Spirit is greater than the Passover lamb, the manna, and the living water. In fact, this Spirit is greater than everything else. Nothing can surpass the Triune God undergoing a long process to become the life-giving Spirit.”

I may not understand or be able to explain the intricacies of Gods person and work, but I do understand one big thing. God is the great I AM. He is not the great “I WILL BECOME.” He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is perfect and needs nothing to be added to Him. He does not need to go through a long process to become something. Whatever attempts we make to explain the redemptive work of Christ, we shouldn’t mess with this fact. Lee did. His presentation leaves those he teaches with the idea that the Spirit of God became something else, different than what He was before that “becoming” happened. This is to go too far.

There is no question that Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension are mysterious and wonderful. It is good to think and talk about the wonder of this and what it means to us, but Lee took articulating and explaining the complexities of the redemptive work of Christ to a whole ‘nuther level. He repeated and repeated and repeated his beliefs about these things. No doubt, some of what He said is true, but also, some of it is not. Therein lies the problem. The "not true" part is carefully woven into the true. The above quote is what I see to be crossing the truth line.

Thankful Jane