Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Evangelical · 09-10-2016, 03:38 AM

I found a good explanation of the orthodox definition of "mingling" or divinization in post #63 in http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...8571#post48571

There are actually two possible heresies here. One is about the confusion, and the other is about the confused things becoming a third thing.

Lee tries to justify himself by saying:
"Nevertheless, the oil and the flour are mingled together to produce one entity. But this entity is not a third nature, something that is neither oil nor flour".

"the oil and the flour are mingled together" - this is the first heresy, which Lee does not attempt to justify. Possibly he is unaware that this is a heresy.
"But this entity is not a third nature, something that is neither oil nor flour" - he doesn't believe in this second heresy. He is probably aware of this and tries to make clear he does not believe this.

The Athanasian Creed states "One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.".
Lee believes in confusion of substance, and that is the problem. He believes in unity of person by confusion of substance. Even though he does not believe that a third entity is produced, his view of the relationship as a confusion is a problem.

Lee's idea of oneness is God and man being confused together into one thing. The correct idea is God and man being joined together.

What is the problem with saying God and man are confused together? The problem is that it means God and man cannot be separated, and that God and man cannot easily be distinguished. This precludes his belief in eternal security.

I personally believe Lee held to this example of flour and oil mixing together, in order to justify or support his belief in eternal security.

With language, one example of bad language choice would be to equate deification with sonization. Sometimes he replaces the word deification with sonization, which isn't even a word.

The high peak revelation is more about all these things put together as "God's economy". God's economy involves salvation, mingling, "sonization"/deification, and then finally the corporate aspect of that, the New Jerusalem.

Possibly, he is the first to tie all of these things together under one umbrella term "God's economy" or "God's plan". But, he is not the first to see each of these matters individually.

All of these matters can easily be explained using normal terms that most Christians are familiar with:
mingling = prayer and bible reading
sonization = renewing of the mind/sanctification/transformation, the flesh/old man being crucified etc.

09-10-2016, 03:38 AM	#134
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer I found a good explanation of the orthodox definition of "mingling" or divinization in post #63 in http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...8571#post48571 There are actually two possible heresies here. One is about the confusion, and the other is about the confused things becoming a third thing. Lee tries to justify himself by saying: "Nevertheless, the oil and the flour are mingled together to produce one entity. But this entity is not a third nature, something that is neither oil nor flour". "the oil and the flour are mingled together" - this is the first heresy, which Lee does not attempt to justify. Possibly he is unaware that this is a heresy. "But this entity is not a third nature, something that is neither oil nor flour" - he doesn't believe in this second heresy. He is probably aware of this and tries to make clear he does not believe this. The Athanasian Creed states "One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.". Lee believes in confusion of substance, and that is the problem. He believes in unity of person by confusion of substance. Even though he does not believe that a third entity is produced, his view of the relationship as a confusion is a problem. Lee's idea of oneness is God and man being confused together into one thing. The correct idea is God and man being joined together. What is the problem with saying God and man are confused together? The problem is that it means God and man cannot be separated, and that God and man cannot easily be distinguished. This precludes his belief in eternal security. I personally believe Lee held to this example of flour and oil mixing together, in order to justify or support his belief in eternal security. With language, one example of bad language choice would be to equate deification with sonization. Sometimes he replaces the word deification with sonization, which isn't even a word. The high peak revelation is more about all these things put together as "God's economy". God's economy involves salvation, mingling, "sonization"/deification, and then finally the corporate aspect of that, the New Jerusalem. Possibly, he is the first to tie all of these things together under one umbrella term "God's economy" or "God's plan". But, he is not the first to see each of these matters individually. All of these matters can easily be explained using normal terms that most Christians are familiar with: mingling = prayer and bible reading sonization = renewing of the mind/sanctification/transformation, the flesh/old man being crucified etc.