[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