My Points of Contention With Lee on Mingling

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Russian95

Thank you for your reply. And, I will certainly read the posts you have suggested. It seems the LC culture is "oneness," but oneness in the erroneous teachings of Lee, not oneness in Christ.

I'm honestly not certain if Lee was genuine in his theology or was just trying to gain tape-recorders of his spoken messages to boost ego. I read in one of his books "mingling" just popped into his head one day and he decided to roll with it. Elsewhere, Lee states that we should use "attractive words" like "the infinite became finite" to gain "new ones." So, it might have all been marketing gimmicks to amplify Lee's "unique flavor" of theology which he felt most Christians "did not know."

And, I agree that teaching should be of many forms. Lee's over-focusing on subjective truths distracted his loyal army from him objectively deviating from fundamental doctrines about which Christ we're worshipping. Those things which should be non-negotiable.

Russian95,

Robert is right. Your post is loooonnnnggggg. Too long. Specifically, 2,522 words 14,187 characters.

Please shorten your posts. Limit your word count to 350-400 words. Try addressing one or two subjects per post. Have mercy on your readers. We want to read you, but don’t have the time to spend reading and replying to such lengthy posts.

Robert’s post is 334 words 1,802 characters, so you can see what 350-400 might look like.

Thanks—Nell
Moderator

[Russian95]

Originally Posted by Nell

Russian95,

Robert is right. Your post is loooonnnnggggg. Too long. Specifically, 2,522 words 14,187 characters.

Please shorten your posts. Limit your word count to 350-400 words. Try addressing one or two subjects per post. Have mercy on your readers. We want to read you, but don’t have the time to spend reading and replying to such lengthy posts.

Robert’s post is 334 words 1,802 characters, so you can see what 350-400 might look like.

Thanks—Nell
Moderator

Understood. Thank you for letting me know. I will write shorter posts.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Russian95

Understood. Thank you for letting me know. I will write shorter posts.

Can you summarize your original post?

[Russian95]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Can you summarize your original post?

The short version is - Lee concealed the unorthodox view of mingling human nature and divine elements in Christ's incarnation by saying it was "not merging into one." In other words, to Lee, since the flour (humanity) and oil (divinity) were mixed in such a way that the flour is still "complete" (the flour is still flour and not oil) and the oil is "complete," (the oil is still the oil and not flour), nothing was changed. This never made sense to me - when you mix to complete things, like red ink and blue ink, a third thing - purple ink is produced. Change is inherent to mixing. Lee tried to twist the English language to say that mixing does NOT necessarily equal change. To conclude, Lee would have us worship a "hybrid Jesus," who is not the Second Person. And that is not any minor point of doctrine but a critical aspect of any Christian's belief system.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Russian95

The short version is - Lee concealed the unorthodox view of mingling human nature and divine elements in Christ's incarnation by saying it was "not merging into one." In other words, to Lee, since the flour (humanity) and oil (divinity) were mixed in such a way that the flour is still "complete" (the flour is still flour and not oil) and the oil is "complete," (the oil is still the oil and not flour), nothing was changed. This never made sense to me - when you mix to complete things, like red ink and blue ink, a third thing - purple ink is produced. Change is inherent to mixing. Lee tried to twist the English language to say that mixing does NOT necessarily equal change. To conclude, Lee would have us worship a "hybrid Jesus," who is not the Second Person. And that is not any minor point of doctrine but a critical aspect of any Christian's belief system.

Take a look on ingredients.
In this case I can accept this picture of Tea and water. No body claims that tea and water example was in Bible. This idea is scriptural. God indwelled in Mary. This is mystic and we do not try even understand this. This is a fact in Bible. Jesus has Father God and mother Mary.
Sometimes we do not read carefully what we quoted from WL and can unknowingly missrepresent his words:
.the Bible doesn't say "God entered into man to make the Lord Jesus."

Nope! Bible doesn't say it either WL.
God Himself became a flesh. This is biblical fact.

Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.
1:31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
1:32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
1:33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
1:34 And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.
1:36 And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren.
1:37 For no word from God shall be void of power.
1:38 And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

The Bible says in John 1 that "the Word became flesh". But what does it mean if we hear:One thing became another thing?

Word became flesh" Yes. But really became ANOTHER THING???
hetera- diferrent but among the same species. Hetera colour. hetera trees.
homoiomati- likeness
mathamorfothe- change of shape
and:
διαφορετικός - diaphereticos, dissimilar, different,disperate.
So the question is: what You mean by another and verses plaese to support.
Word "form" rather does not make bigger problem.

Phil 3:21 Who will transform (συμμορφον -symmorfon) our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Math 17.2 And was transfigured (μετεμορφωθη -metemorfōthē, he was tranformed)before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Math 17:4 And Peter answering said to Jesus, Lord, it is good to us to be here; if thou wilt, we may make here three booths -- for thee one, and for Moses one, and one for Elijah.`
Note, that Jesus got Glory, but was still recognizable.
Ad 6. Phil 2.6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

We can see in this mysterious event:
Unique and only one ( probably, if I my memory is short correct me) situation, where living persons could see dead ones in one place on the Earth.
Jesus was still Jesus Himself, God gave His own acceptation to listen to His Son. Remember verses, that we will live by word of God.
Appearance of Moses and Elijah is also recognizable, so Lord Jesus was over time lapse.
He was, He is, and He will be.
So having this view we can better understand of this so called mingling.
If we want to discuss about mingling we have to know firstly what are substances we join or mingle.
And by the way, when we use words " he took flesh" what we mean by this?
Do we remember that he was 1,2,3,4, 12 years old? 27? Do we think sometimes what kind of live this "mingled" Son of God and Son of Man lived?

.

[Trapped]

Welcome to the forum, Russian95!

It is excellent that you are thinking, actually thinking, using the mind that God gave you to use, about whether Lee's teachings hold up or not!

You are asking for input of what you wrote....specifically related to you possibly sitting down and talking to "saints" about it. If I try to put myself in your shoes, the first thing that comes to my mind is this: they won't care about what any theologian says or what BH Stack Exchange says or anything like that. If you are going up against Witness Lee's ministry, using ANYTHING from "Christianity" will be like using a wet noodle to hammer in a nail. Remember, the LC has been called a cult for years, and the local church both rails against "Christianity" and has been railed against BY "Christianity". Telling them that what Witness Lee teaches is called heretical by someone in that same "degraded Christianity" won't have any effect on them and will only close their ears to you and make you "poisoned" in their minds that much quicker.

In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, the best you can do is pit Lee's doctrines against the Bible itself and against logic/reality itself. They may still think you are poisoned, but you will give them a good dose of cognitive dissonance because inside they will be uncomfortable because they know they are disagreeing with the Bible, and not just with "evil Christianity."

(I'm not sure how many of the posts on this forum you've read.....I currently don't hold to the doctrine of the Trinity myself, but from what you've written it seems like you do, and you will be speaking to people who do....so I'll respond to you from within that framework. I will keep my own questions/issues with the Trinity out of it in my response.)

For example, in The Experience & Growth in Life, Lee says this:

Incarnation is God entering into man to mingle Himself with man, making Himself one with man. God was incarnated in the man Jesus Christ. He is a wonderful person, a unique person, with two natures. He has the divine nature and the human nature, yet these two natures do not stand separately; they are mingled together. He is the unique God-man.

The two natures of Christ being mingled together can be illustrated by tea and water. Tea is composed of two elements: tea and water. When we say that we are drinking tea, we actually are drinking tea and water. Therefore, we can say that we are drinking tea-water. God can be likened to tea, and man can be likened to water. As tea and water are mingled together to make tea-water, God and man were mingled together to make a God-man, the Lord Jesus. This God-man is the mingling of two elements, two natures, into one entity without a third nature being produced. In tea-water the two elements of tea and water remain distinct but are not separate. They exist together in a mingled way. It is the same with the Lord Jesus Christ as the God-man with the two natures of divinity and humanity.

But wait, wait, wait.....the Bible doesn't say "God entered into man to make the Lord Jesus." I mean, what Witness Lee is describing with his tea/water example, is a situation where you have God (tea leaves) and you have a regular man (water), and they got swirled together to create Jesus, a God-man (tea-water).

But who is the regular man who God swirled with? Where did that man go post-swirl? This is totally unscriptural.

The Bible says in John 1 that "the Word became flesh". One thing became another thing.

I would also look at Philippians 2:5-8 (ESV)

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The Greek for "form" there is "morphe", which means "form, shape, or outward appearance". It's the same word used in Mark 16:12 after Jesus' resurrection and it says He appeared to them "in a different form".

Whatever form He was.....He took another form when He was born on earth in the likeness of men.

None of these descriptions of the incarnation, word becoming flesh, form of God taking the form of a servant/human, none of those are anything like tea leaves and water being mixed together to make tea.

It literally says that Jesus "came from heaven" (John 6 re: the bread of life), and that Jesus "came from the Father and entered the world" (John 16), that "since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity..." (Hebrews 2). It seems to me that it is much more like a caterpillar morphing (there's that word "morphe") into a butterfly than it is taking tea leaves and water and soaking tea in water to make tea-water. Actually what I think it is, is simply a being with a spiritual body clothing itself with our earthly flesh/blood body. Either way, nothing the Bible gives us by way of description is like mixing tea leaves and water.

I personally think that the transfiguration of Jesus in Matthew 17 might have been a brief glimpse on His part of what He really looked like before taking on human flesh, but I'll leave that be......

Not sure if any of that helped, but I better stop here for length. My main point is.....pit Lee against the Bible, not against any other teachers.

Trapped

[Russian95]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Welcome to the forum, Russian95!

It is excellent that you are thinking, actually thinking, using the mind that God gave you to use, about whether Lee's teachings hold up or not!

You are asking for input of what you wrote....specifically related to you possibly sitting down and talking to "saints" about it. If I try to put myself in your shoes, the first thing that comes to my mind is this: they won't care about what any theologian says or what BH Stack Exchange says or anything like that. If you are going up against Witness Lee's ministry, using ANYTHING from "Christianity" will be like using a wet noodle to hammer in a nail. Remember, the LC has been called a cult for years, and the local church both rails against "Christianity" and has been railed against BY "Christianity". Telling them that what Witness Lee teaches is called heretical by someone in that same "degraded Christianity" won't have any effect on them and will only close their ears to you and make you "poisoned" in their minds that much quicker.

In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, the best you can do is pit Lee's doctrines against the Bible itself and against logic/reality itself. They may still think you are poisoned, but you will give them a good dose of cognitive dissonance because inside they will be uncomfortable because they know they are disagreeing with the Bible, and not just with "evil Christianity."

(I'm not sure how many of the posts on this forum you've read.....I currently don't hold to the doctrine of the Trinity myself, but from what you've written it seems like you do, and you will be speaking to people who do....so I'll respond to you from within that framework. I will keep my own questions/issues with the Trinity out of it in my response.)

For example, in The Experience & Growth in Life, Lee says this:

Incarnation is God entering into man to mingle Himself with man, making Himself one with man. God was incarnated in the man Jesus Christ. He is a wonderful person, a unique person, with two natures. He has the divine nature and the human nature, yet these two natures do not stand separately; they are mingled together. He is the unique God-man.

The two natures of Christ being mingled together can be illustrated by tea and water. Tea is composed of two elements: tea and water. When we say that we are drinking tea, we actually are drinking tea and water. Therefore, we can say that we are drinking tea-water. God can be likened to tea, and man can be likened to water. As tea and water are mingled together to make tea-water, God and man were mingled together to make a God-man, the Lord Jesus. This God-man is the mingling of two elements, two natures, into one entity without a third nature being produced. In tea-water the two elements of tea and water remain distinct but are not separate. They exist together in a mingled way. It is the same with the Lord Jesus Christ as the God-man with the two natures of divinity and humanity.

But wait, wait, wait.....the Bible doesn't say "God entered into man to make the Lord Jesus." I mean, what Witness Lee is describing with his tea/water example, is a situation where you have God (tea leaves) and you have a regular man (water), and they got swirled together to create Jesus, a God-man (tea-water).

But who is the regular man who God swirled with? Where did that man go post-swirl? This is totally unscriptural.

The Bible says in John 1 that "the Word became flesh". One thing became another thing.

I would also look at Philippians 2:5-8 (ESV)

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The Greek for "form" there is "morphe", which means "form, shape, or outward appearance". It's the same word used in Mark 16:12 after Jesus' resurrection and it says He appeared to them "in a different form".

Whatever form He was.....He took another form when He was born on earth in the likeness of men.

None of these descriptions of the incarnation, word becoming flesh, form of God taking the form of a servant/human, none of those are anything like tea leaves and water being mixed together to make tea.

It literally says that Jesus "came from heaven" (John 6 re: the bread of life), and that Jesus "came from the Father and entered the world" (John 16), that "since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity..." (Hebrews 2). It seems to me that it is much more like a caterpillar morphing (there's that word "morphe") into a butterfly than it is taking tea leaves and water and soaking tea in water to make tea-water. Actually what I think it is, is simply a being with a spiritual body clothing itself with our earthly flesh/blood body. Either way, nothing the Bible gives us by way of description is like mixing tea leaves and water.

I personally think that the transfiguration of Jesus in Matthew 17 might have been a brief glimpse on His part of what He really looked like before taking on human flesh, but I'll leave that be......

Not sure if any of that helped, but I better stop here for length. My main point is.....pit Lee against the Bible, not against any other teachers.

Trapped

Thank you for your post. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, but it seems like the "hypostatic union" within Christ is much more mysterious than the cold mechanical process of a homogeneous mixture of two chemicals. Cold/distant seems to be reflective of the old covenant where Lee god the word "mingle" from, but the New Covenant presents a God revealing Himself to us in a much deeper way - like the transfiguration that you mentioned. Your post also reminds me of the idea that Jesus was still the same Second Person. God is the same and unchanging inside Creation as well as outside Creation. It's not as if there was a separate human person and at incarnation, Jesus possessed his body. Which is really why Lee's theology is so offensive - that he doesn't respect the notion that the Word becoming flesh never meant that the Second Person had some other being incorporated into him.

As far as the Trinity, I do still hold to that myself, but am very puzzled that Lee's theology is based on taking the "difficult passages for Trinitarians" = life-giving Spirit, "Lord is Spirit," Romans 8:9-11, etc. and interpreting them as Oneness believers would. Very curious that's the route he takes and then still claims to believe in a Trinity.

Finally, a lot of my research is based on Anaheim's written responses to "opposers" and it seems like they rely a lot on quotes from respected theologians. When I dug deeper, however those same quoted theologians don't seem to agree at all with Lee's understanding of the nature of the Trinity or much else. It was just quotes taken out of context, it seems. In any case, it appears at least LSM leadership takes these theologians seriously. Even though the rank-and-file "saints" might be more likely to see them as "suppressive persons" to use the cult Scientology's terminology.

I will continue to try to discuss Scripture, but it's challenging sometimes as Lee-ites take the route of shoehorning their interpretation (a life-giving Spirit for example), and not caring at all what the immediate or Biblical context has to say about that interpretation or how much it doesn't fit. It really is mind-numbing at times.

Thank you for the words of wisdom. I appreciate it!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Russian95

As far as the Trinity, I do still hold to that myself, but am very puzzled that Lee's theology is based on taking the "difficult passages for Trinitarians" = life-giving Spirit, "Lord is Spirit," Romans 8:9-11, etc. and interpreting them as Oneness believers would. Very curious that's the route he takes and then still claims to believe in a Trinity.

You're right! Lee was such a mish-mash of such a variety of teachings....

Originally Posted by Russian95

Finally, a lot of my research is based on Anaheim's written responses to "opposers" and it seems like they rely a lot on quotes from respected theologians. When I dug deeper, however those same quoted theologians don't seem to agree at all with Lee's understanding of the nature of the Trinity or much else. It was just quotes taken out of context, it seems. In any case, it appears at least LSM leadership takes these theologians seriously. Even though the rank-and-file "saints" might be more likely to see them as "suppressive persons" to use the cult Scientology's terminology.

I will continue to try to discuss Scripture, but it's challenging sometimes as Lee-ites take the route of shoehorning their interpretation (a life-giving Spirit for example), and not caring at all what the immediate or Biblical context has to say about that interpretation or how much it doesn't fit. It really is mind-numbing at times.

Thank you for the words of wisdom. I appreciate it!

You are so right on all of this. Anaheim will prop up theologians and such from Christianity when it supports their own viewpoint, but shrinks back from those same theologians and other Christian teachers when they are in opposition to Lee. Since you are taking the "I disagree with Lee" stance.....theologians and other Christians won't be as welcome. It's maddening. I don't mean to discourage you from going that route at all.....I can just imagine you encountering pretty blank stares from them. Although, it depends on who you talk to. There are a few saints scattered around who actually do read other things and who would be able to engage!

And you are very right on the Scripture part too, and how they will only be able to see it from their Lee-taught interpretation and not from what Scripture actually says. I guess all you can do is pray beforehand that their eyes would be opened and the Lord would prepare their hearts and minds beforehand, and that Satan's strongholds would be broken.

Trapped