Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Thankful Jane,

It is not "joined" that is referring to the mingling specifically in your references, rather "one spirit".

Examine the references from Witness Lee you posted.

The fact is that I already examined them and that is why I wrote what I did. I saw plainly that Lee was referring to "one spirit" when he spoke about mingling.

That is the problem. You cannot say "He that is glued to the Lord is mingled with the Lord." It doesn't work.

Thankful Jane

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The fact is that I already examined them and that is why I wrote what I did. I saw plainly that Lee was referring to "one spirit" when he spoke about mingling.

That is the problem. You cannot say "He that is glued to the Lord is mingled with the Lord." It doesn't work.

Thankful Jane

Yes, but your argument against mingling hinged on the greek word for "joined", yet the references you provided showed clearly that Witness Lee hinged the term mingling on the "one spirit".

According to the verse it is the act of being joined that results in the state or condition of being one spirit.

This word for one in 1 Cor 6:17, "heis" in greek, is the same word used by Jesus when referring to relationship that He has with the Father:

John 17: 21-23a that they may all be one (heis), just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one (heis) even as we are one (heis), 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one (heis)

I Cor 6:17 He who is joined (kollao) to the Lord is one (heis) spirit.

Therefore, the characterization of mingling resides with the "one spirit" (heis), the many "one"'s (heis) as in John 17 and not "joined" (kollao) as you argued.

So according to John 17 the Lord Jesus said the "heis" He had with the Father was that the Father was in Him and He in the Father. This mutual indwelling between the Father and the Son is referred to as co-inherence ("see blue text above in John 17)), borrowing a more accepted theological term. The Lord Jesus said that the believers were to be "heis" with the Father and the Son. He says They (Father and Son) would be in the believers and the believers would be in the Father and the Son and that the believers, as a result, would be perfectly "heis".

Therefore, according to the Lord's prayer in John 17 the believers were (future tense at that prayer's instance) to be brought into the co-inherence of the Father and the Son.

I'll pause to let that percolate before continuing.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes, but your argument against mingling hinged on the greek word for "joined", yet the references you provided showed clearly that Witness Lee hinged the term mingling on the "one spirit".

According to the verse it is the act of being joined that results in the state or condition of being one spirit.

This word for one in 1 Cor 6:17, "heis" in greek, is the same word used by Jesus when referring to relationship that He has with the Father:

John 17: 21-23a that they may all be one (heis), just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one (heis) even as we are one (heis), 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one (heis)

I Cor 6:17 He who is joined (kollao) to the Lord is one (heis) spirit.

Therefore, the characterization of mingling resides with the "one spirit" (heis), the many "one"'s (heis) as in John 17 and not "joined" (kollao) as you argued.

So according to John 17 the Lord Jesus said the "heis" He had with the Father was that the Father was in Him and He in the Father. This mutual indwelling between the Father and the Son is referred to as co-inherence ("see blue text above in John 17)), borrowing a more accepted theological term. The Lord Jesus said that the believers were to be "heis" with the Father and the Son. He says They (Father and Son) would be in the believers and the believers would be in the Father and the Son and that the believers, as a result, would be perfectly "heis".

Therefore, according to the Lord's prayer in John 17 the believers were (future tense at that prayer's instance) to be brought into the co-inherence of the Father and the Son.

I'll pause to let that percolate before continuing.

Please take note of this: I get the fact that Lee “hinged the term mingling on ‘one spirit.’” There is no need for you to keep saying this. It is very clear that this is what he did.

I’m glad you are focusing on this because this is the problem with what Lee did. He made his “mingling” interpretation of “one” by using only the last part of the verse. He did not take into account the true meaning of the first part. This is sloppy handling of the Word. The word “joined” in the first part negates and excludes his interpretation of “one” in the last part. It actually proves that his “mingling” interpretation of “one” is wrong.

In other words, you cannot say that two things that become one by being glued or cleaving together are now mingled with each other. This is simply not possible. The very fact that two things are glued together makes it plain that the two are distinct from one another and are not mingled with each other. So in light of the whole verse, His interpretation is not rational and is wrong.

As for the oneness we have with the Father and Son, it is not mingling—it is indwelling, as you so clearly pointed out in the rest of your post. Your argument actually supports mine because indwelling is not mingling. To dwell means to reside in or inhabit, like I reside in my house. I have made my house my home (similar to Scripture that says that Christ makes His home in our heart). My house has not and will not ever become me. I am distinct from my house, yet I dwell in it. God knew we would easily understand the concept of dwelling in this way. John 1:14 says the Word dwelt (tented, encamped, tabernacled) among us. The scripture also says we are His temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in us (I Cor. 3:16). This is a good picture of our oneness with Him, and indwelling is clearly not mingling.

Thankful Jane

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Please take note of this: I get the fact that Lee “hinged the term mingling on ‘one spirit.’” There is no need for you to keep saying this. It is very clear that this is what he did.

I’m glad you are focusing on this because this is the problem with what Lee did. He made his “mingling” interpretation of “one” by using only the last part of the verse. He did not take into account the true meaning of the first part. This is sloppy handling of the Word. The word “joined” in the first part negates and excludes his interpretation of “one” in the last part. It actually proves that his “mingling” interpretation of “one” is wrong.

In other words, you cannot say that two things that become one by being glued or cleaving together are now mingled with each other. This is simply not possible. The very fact that two things are glued together makes it plain that the two are distinct from one another and are not mingled with each other. So in light of the whole verse, His interpretation is not rational and is wrong.

As for the oneness we have with the Father and Son, it is not mingling—it is indwelling, as you so clearly pointed out in the rest of your post. Your argument actually supports mine because indwelling is not mingling. To dwell means to reside in or inhabit, like I reside in my house. I have made my house my home (similar to Scripture that says that Christ makes His home in our heart). My house has not and will not ever become me. I am distinct from my house, yet I dwell in it. God knew we would easily understand the concept of dwelling in this way. John 1:14 says the Word dwelt (tented, encamped, tabernacled) among us. The scripture also says we are His temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in us (I Cor. 3:16). This is a good picture of our oneness with Him, and indwelling is clearly not mingling.

Thankful Jane

You're discounting the biblical definition of the divine-human co-inherence by considering only the picture of a house while ignoring the many other pictures in the Bible to explain the mysterious and complex relationship between God and man. Using only the picture of a physical structure one would have to conclude as you do, but, that would be shorting the complete revelation in the Bible.

For instance, John 17 shows the nature of the oneness between the Father, Son, and the believers. It is a co-inherence just as that between the Father and Son in eternity. It cannot be said that the Father and Son have only an indwelling equivalent to that of a house with each other but nothing more. By using the illustration of house and going no further you leave out relevant facts that would aid in understanding this great mystery. Furthermore, applying your logic and definition to the Trinity would place you outside the pale of orthodoxy (well into into tritheism).

Besides, how does one understand or explain how two dwelling places inhabit each other if not by some other biblical examples?

You said: "...you cannot say that two things that become one by being glued or cleaving together are now mingled with each other. This is simply not possible."

Of course it is possible! These are two apects of one thing.

The first aspect is the joining and the second is condition of having been joined. The Bible provides us such an illustration of the wild olive branch grafted into a cultivated olive tree. When the wild olive branch is "joined" or grafted into the cultivated olive tree it begins to absorb the life sap supply from the cultivated tree. The life essence of the cultivated olive tree becomes the life of the grafted branch. In the same way the believer is initially grafted or joined to Christ and in that position is now able to draw through his own being the life essence from the cultivated olive tree. The fruit is a result of the sap of the cultivated olive tree saturating the grafted branch, becoming its very life, and expressing that life in olives. This also is an illustration of the divine-human mingling confirming that the joining and the mingling are perfectly congruent in 1 Cor 6:17. Being joined and glued to Christ starts the process as without that no mingling can begin. Once joined, absorbing the essence of the divine life is the mingling.

[Paul Cox]

Cassidy,

A grafted branch is only hitching a ride with the tree to which it is grafted, and, as you point out, draws it's sustenance from the parent tree. The two never at any time co-inhere. The one part of the tree continues to be what it is by nature, and produce what it produces by nature, and the other part does the same. Hybrid breeding seems to be a better example of "mingling" than does grafting. I should know, I'm a hybrid. Can't divide me up into my 4 percentages. Anyway...

Now, I pointed out something earlier that you refused to answer. Maybe you are too intellectual to stoop to my level. But give it a try. Stooping (humbling) can be very good for the Christian progress. Lee said that mingling is irreversible. It is in one of the Corinthian footnotes. If you need me to copy paste it I can. So, according to you, the joining takes place, resulting in irreversible (according to Lee) mingling. Is that right? Yet, in I cor. 6, Paul was addressing behavior that had to do with sexual immorality. He was talking about a choice one makes to either be joined with a harlot, and become one body with her, or join one's self to the Lord and be one spirit with Him.

Lee's teaching that being "mingled" with the Lord is irreversible is misleading at best. From II Cor. 7:1 it is clear that one can be defiled in both the flesh and the spirit. If joining ourselves to the Lord results in irreversible "mingling" then there would be no need for any admonition from the Apostles. Go home Paul, I got this.

And here is another thought. Could it be that in the Lord's prayer, in John 17, that the Lord wasn't talking about "co-inherence" of the Triune God at all? So many of the Local Church teachings are based upon Witness Lee's assumptions and leaps. If "Bruther Lee" said it that makes it the word from on high.

P.C.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You're discounting the biblical definition of the divine-human co-inherence

I'm sorry, please show me which book, chapter, and verse that the words "divine-human co-inherence" are used and defined. I don't think we are talking about biblical definitions. We are talking about men's definitions, as they try to define God and place Him in a box, ready for marketing.

P.C.

[UntoHim]

The disastrous results of the Bad Lee’s Bad Theology:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.agodman.com/blog/we-are-b...-grafted-life/

"we are becoming the tree of life!
We are not becoming “THE TREE OF LIFE” just as we are not becoming God in His Godhead, but by being grafted into Christ and as branches in the vine, we are part of the tree of life! When we are grafted into Christ, His divine life fills our human life, mingles with our human life, and spontaneously enriches, uplifts, and transforms our human life. In His economy God dispenses His divine life and element into us to mingle Himself with us and make us the same as He is. Now we are branches of the tree of life – and wherever we are, the tree of life is reaching out to others to minister life to them!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we go again. Just as Lee, his followers make outrageous, unbiblical statements and then try to mitigate them with lame, weak provisos. I would ask the author here: So just like you have two Godheads (one that we become and one that we don’t become) now you have given us two trees of life?! What can justify such an absurd statement….oh yeah there is that “mingle Himself with us and make us the same as He is” part. Bad theology begets bad theology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.agodman.com/blog/tag/join...gled-with-god/

"we are going through a metamorphic change to become the Body of Christ, God’s glorious expression
In this organic structure, God the Father is the person – He is over all(managing and caring for all), and through all(penetrating and joining all), and He is even in all(dwelling and living in us all). Also, God the Son is the element and the factor of life in the Body of Christ – through baptism we were cut off from the old element of the Adamic life, and through our believing into the Lord we were joined to the element of Christ’s new life. God the Spirit is the essence of the life of the Body of Christ – He is the Spirit of the life of Christ, and He is saturating us with the splendor of this essence so that the Body of Christ may enter into the glory of the life of Christ"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So our “becoming the Body of Christ” is something “we are going through”? Really? So we’re not yet the Body of Christ? We have to go “through a metamorphic change”? That’s funny cause my Bible tells me that we, the Church, are ALREADY the Body of Christ. When we are born again we are born into this Body, and we don’t need to go through some metamorphic change. This is not only unbiblical, it is anti-bilbical

Then, even worse things come from this author. The trinity is split up as follows – The Father is “the person”, the son is “the element” and the Spirit is “the essence”. There is so much wrong here that I don’t know where to begin. I did notice the author neglects to use one single verse to back up any of this (not that he could find any if he tried). This person has apparently soaked up enough Bad Lee’s Bad Theology that they think they don’t even need a verse or two to back any of it up!

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You're discounting the biblical definition of the divine-human co-inherence by considering only the picture of a house while ignoring the many other pictures in the Bible to explain the mysterious and complex relationship between God and man. Using only the picture of a physical structure one would have to conclude as you do, but, that would be shorting the revelation in the Bible.For instance, John 17 shows the nature of the oneness between the Father, Son, and the believers. It is a co-inherence just as that between the Father and Son in eternity. It cannot be said that the Father and Son have only an indwelling equivalent to that of a house with each other but nothing more. By using the illustration of house and going no further you leave out relevant facts that would aid in understanding this great mystery. Furthermore, applying your logic and definition to the Trinity would place you outside the pale of orthodoxy (well into into tritheism). Besides, how does one understand or explain how two dwelling places inhabit each other if not by some other biblical examples?

I made no claim that my house illustration was an attempt at a full exposition on the topic of our oneness with God, so your argument that I failed to go further than I did sounds a bit silly to me. The topic in hand is not about explaining our oneness with God, but about I Cor. 6:17 and Lee’s misuse and misinterpretation of it.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You said: "...you cannot say that two things that become one by being glued or cleaving together are now mingled with each other. This is simply not possible."

Of course it is possible! These are two apects of one thing.

The first aspect is the joining and the second is condition of having been joined.

Note that Lee said plainly that “join” in this verse referred to the organic union with the Lord through believing in Him, and he referenced verses about new birth (John 3:15-16). He ignored the fact that the word “joined” meant “glued” and chose rather to give it his own meaning. I repeat, this is sloppy handling of the Word of God. Most of us who heard his exposition of I Cor 6:17 took it to mean something had happened at new birth that could not be undone. In other words, we were joined to the Lord and we were one spirit. This is a wrong understanding of I Cor 6:17.

Equating “join” in I Cor. 6:17 to new birth as Lee did carries with it the idea that such joining cannot be broken. However, the proper meaning of the word "joined" in I Cor. 6:17 is cleaving or being glued. This shows that believers are responsible to cleave to the Lord and remain glued to Lord in order to be one spirit. This means the glued connection can be broken by us. This is a very significant distinction which I will say more about. It is a distinction that Lee bypasses in his interpretation.

The bottom line is that you are bent on arguing for Lee’s mingling teaching. I suspect that you are unable to objectively examine I Cor 6:17 because your mingling belief forbids it and because you most likely have a vested interest in defending this belief. I am under no illusion that I can persuade you differently. The reason I am responding to you is for the benefit of others who might be reading.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The Bible provides us such an illustration of a wild olive branch grafted into a cultivated olive tree. When the wild olive branch is "joined" or grafted into the cultivated olive tree it begins to absorb the life sap supply from the cultivated tree. The life essence of the cultivated olive tree becomes the life of the grafted branch. In the same way the believer is initially grafted or joined to Christ and in that position is now able to draw through its own fibers the life essence from the cultivated olive tree. The fruit is a result of the sap of the cultivated olive tree saturating the grafted branch, becoming its very life, and expressing that life in olives. This also is an illustration of the divine-human mingling confirming that the joining and the mingling are perfectly congruent in 1 Cor 6:17. Being joined and glued to Christ starts the process as without that no mingling can begin. Once joined, absorbing the essence of the divine life is the mingling.

Just so you’ll know that I heard you, you used the illustration of the vine in John 15 to say that joining or gluing makes way for the mingling. You also claimed that the same illustration illustrates the “divine-human mingling” which shows that joining and mingling fit well together in I Cor 6:17. You said this was because “once joined, absorbing the essence of the divine life is the mingling.” Just so we’re clear, your explanation is Lee’s interpretation of the vine and branches. It only presents a partial view of John 15, the part that Lee believes supports his mingling theology.

I'm going to proceed by nailing down our fundamental difference:

You are contending for what Lee teaches about mingling, using Lee’s interpretations and explanations. He teaches that it is mingling, or dispensing of a life essence, that produces everything that a believer needs in His walk. The import of the mingling teaching is that God does it all by dispensing His life essence. Once joined to Him by new birth, it’s downhill from there… just keep the life juice flowing into the branch by calling on the Lord and pray-reading and God will take care of the rest. Nothing else is needed. The divine dispensing will saturate the branches and do it all.

I am contending for what I see the Bible teaches, using the Bible: When we cleave to the Lord, stay glued to Him, and let nothing come between, we are one spirit (I Cor 6:17). We have access to Him by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:18) and are able to engage in a cognitive, conscious, conversational relationship with Him (I Jn 1:3). We can come boldly to the throne of grace and obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need (Heb 4:16). He supplies us as we come to Him and empowers us to live as He does (Php 4:13). He does not take over and start living in us independently of our interactive relationship with Him. It is critical, in order to have fellowship with Him, that we take care of staying glued to Him, that we cleave to Him. We are to keep His commandments. If we sin, we break the glue seal, and we lose our fellowship, our relationship. We have to repent and be cleansed to have our fellowship with Him restored (I Jn). (Note that in John 15 the Lord says that if a branch, a man, does not abide in him, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered. This points to a conditional relationship like the one in I Cor 6:17. Also, the Lord mentions that the branches are clean through the word which He speaks to them, which shows that He has a conversational relationship with the branches that convicts them of sin so they can be clean by repentance.)

Lee’s teaching about mingling is unhealthy. He misleads people to believe in an autopilot-like relationship with God produced by having the vision of one spirit and experiencing the one spirit (as he claims in the rest of his I Cor. message on this topic). His teaching stresses mingling that will do whatever is needed, including produce holiness. He actually equates dispensing and sanctification (being made holy), teaching that dispensing is what produces sanctification (holiness). It appears that Lee believed this because, as I posted elsewhere, he didn’t bother to take responsibility to repent for blatant sin, but just kept on ministering and teaching about dispensing doing it all. In other words, the sanctification-by-mingling teaching produces believers who can walk in sin while believing that God is the one who will make them holy by being dispensed into them. Lee’s mingling theology supersedes healthy teaching about the believers responsibility to be holy by walking in the light of the Word and repenting for sins that break fellowship with the Lord.

The Bible literally commands "Be ye holy" (I Pet. 1:15-16). It does not say be ye mingled. It does not teach that we become holy (sanctified) by something called mingling or divine dispensing. It teaches that we become holy by confessing our sins and being cleansed by the blood of the Lamb.

We do not have guaranteed access to God by virtue of our new birth alone. We must be clean. We are responsible to see that we remain clean and stay glued to the Lord. Any teaching that overlooks or overrides the importance of, or emphasis on, this fundamental truth is an unhealthy teaching. The mingling teaching does exactly this. It is false and is detrimental to the spiritual life of those who embrace it.

Thankful Jane