In 14/12/2012, YM wrote an essay entitled “Washing of feet
is not to have a part with Christ, and also a treatise on the Holy Spirit”. I have
attached it in Appendix 3 for you. It is a pretty long.
1. I have said it again and again and I will once again
repeat this. When we talk about the Holy Spirit, nobody denies the article of
faith, which says speaking in tongue is evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit.
In HBL, there are some people who say that receiving the
Holy Spirit need not be evidenced by speaking in tongues. This has nothing to
do with YM.
2. The crux of the argument is this.
a. YM claims that the Holy Spirit lives in a person who has
been born again through baptism. Secondly, this person must continue to pursue
the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.
b. A few believers has interpreted this as such: Since we
already have the Holy Spirit in us, why must we still pray for the Holy
Spirit? Isn’t this way of thinking the
same as in 1932? When you receive baptism, you already have a part with Christ.
So why must you still have your feet washed?
c. Why is it that when we talk about resurrection we will
not be stuck at this point? Baptism allows us to be raised in our body and
spirit (Rom 6:1-5)? When we receive the Holy Spirit, it will cause our mortal
bodies to resurrect (Rom 8:11). Receiving the Lord’s body and blood lets us be
raised on the last day (Jn 6:54). Nobody has ever asked the question: since I
have received baptism and received the Holy Spirit, I can be resurrected. Why must
I still receive the body and blood of Christ to be resurrected?
d. When we talk about eternal life, no one gets stuck: When
a person is baptized, he receives eternal life (Mk 16:16). One who receives the
body and blood of Christ receives eternal life (Jn 6:54). When we receive the Holy
Communion in the Spring spiritual meeting, why do you receive Holy Communion
again in the Autumn spiritual meeting? Since we receive eternal life in Spring,
why must we receive eternal life again in Autumn?
e. When we receive the baptism, we already have the Spirit
living in us.
But we still have to
receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. This is grace upon grace
and strength upon strength, resurrection plus resurrection, eternal life plus
eternal life and Holy Spirit plus Holy Spirit.
3.If someone really denies that speaking in tongues is
evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit, then there is a point of contention. Has
anybody proposed this in actuality?
[5 paragraphs of commentary are omitted here]
4. This is YM’s summary to this question. If somebody
continues to say that YM proposes that receiving the Holy Spirit is not
evidenced by speaking in tongues and denies receiving the Holy Spirit and
speaking in tongues, and has gone against our doctrine of the Holy Spirit that
has been taught all these years, then I can only mourn for you.
Analysis:
1. Firstly, YM clearly explains that the Holy Spirit lives
in a person who has been baptized and is born again, but this person must
receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the speaking in tongues as
evidence. - He also repeatedly explains that he does not deny tongue speaking
as evidence of the Holy Spirit.
-He testifies about the number of people in Paris and
African churches, who receive the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues.
2. So where has YM deviated?
-The problem is that he views receiving the Holy Spirit as
evidenced by tongues is not an absolute requirement.
-He does not object to praying for the Holy Spirit and
receiving the Holy Spirit by tongues speaking but he does not think it is an
absolute necessity.
3. There are seminars held in three places where we can see
from his explanation that he does not reckon that praying for the Holy Spirit
and speaking in tongues is an absolute necessity.
First of all, while from what I can
tell the English translation here is mostly accurate, there are some anomalies.
First, there are five paragraphs that are missing from the original (highlighted in green below). Secondly,
there are subtle differences in wording. I'm not suggesting that whoever did
this translation willfully misrepresented Pr. Yang's original writing, but in
the interest of objectivity and fairness, allow me to provide a translation
that is more complete and arguably more accurate (my thanks to the two sisters who came up with this translation for me and who double-checked and triple-checked it for accuracy):
Time and
time again it has been said, so to repeat it once again: in discussing the
Holy Spirit, no one is denying our common belief that 'speaking in tongues is
the clear evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit'. Therefore, one member's
persistent declaration in HBL [an online forum] that 'receiving the Holy Spirit is not
necessarily evidenced by the speaking of tongues' is completely unrelated to
that of YM's.
a. YM said
that, 1. the Holy Spirit lives IN one who has been baptized by water and was
reborn; 2. however, this person must receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
which is evidenced by the speaking of tongues.
b. Some of the brethren interpret this as claiming that since the Holy Spirit is
already IN the person, there is therefore no need to ask for the Holy Spirit. This kind of thinking
is reminiscent of some members of our church in 1932 who questioned the necessity of foot washing. They asked "if one is already 'a part of the
Lord' once they are baptized by water and have received the Holy Spirit, why do they also need to
have their feet washed?"
c. We never hear this kind of impasse when we discuss the topic of 'resurrection'. We can all agree that water baptism enables the resurrection of the body and the spirit (Rom
6:1-5), receiving the Holy Spirit resurrects the body destined for death (Rom
8:11), and partaking the flesh and blood of the Lord ensures resurrection in the
Last Days (Jn 6:54). No one ever asks, 'I am resurrected because I have been
baptized by water and received the Holy Spirit, so why do I also have to partake of the
flesh and blood of the Lord in order to resurrect?'
d. When we discuss 'eternal life', we don't see any contradictions either: those
who are baptized receive eternal life (Mk 16:16); those who ate the flesh and
drank the blood of the Lord have eternal life (Jn 6:54). Those who partake of
the Holy Communion during Spring Spiritual Convocation don't question why they also have to
partake it again during the Fall Spiritual Convocation? You don't hear people asking, "if I have already received
eternal life during the spring, why do I need to receive eternal life again during
the fall?"
e. Given this, why is the concept that '(those who have been baptized) and have the Holy
Spirit living IN them, but must still "receive the Holy Spirit evidenced by
speaking in tongues", such a difficult one to understand? This is what is
called grace upon grace, and strength upon strength! Resurrection +
resurrection... eternal life + eternal life... Holy Spirit + Holy Spirit...
If in fact
someone does deny that 'speaking in tongues is clear evidence of receiving the
Holy Spirit', there may be some room to question them. But in reality, has anyone ever
claimed this? YM merely used plain language, with additional scriptural
references, to further clarify the century-old traditional teaching of the TJC.
a. Our traditional belief says, 'after water baptism (unrelated to "receiving the Holy Spirit evidenced
by speaking in tongues"), one is a child of God, a priest, a king, one who
belongs to God.'
b. (For purposes of clarifying the traditional belief), YM explained that Adam became
the Son of God because God breathed the breath of life INTO his nostrils,
not because he was able to speak in tongues. Therefore, when men return to
Christ and are called sons of God it's because the Spirit of God lives in them. Rom
8:9 was very clear, "You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but
are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And
if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to
Christ." The 'in' referred to in this passage is unrelated to "receiving
the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues"! Rather, it refers to,
"those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God" (Rom
8:14). If not, if someone has been baptized for 50 years but has not received
the Holy Spirit nor speaks in tongue, will his love and kindness towards fellow
men and God not rank him as belonging to Christ all these years? Is he not a
Son of God? If someone lived for 80 years and died without having "received
the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues", does that mean he was
never considered a Son of God? (And in fact, according to Elder Hsieh
Shuan-Dao, those who spent a lifetime loving men and God, even if they do not
receive the Holy Spirit nor speak in tongues at the moment of their death, they
will have, in fact, received the 'promised' Holy Spirit).
c. Paul
said, "Flee from sexual immorality, but whoever sins sexually, sins
against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the
Holy Spirit, who is (IN) you, ...you were bought at a price." (Rom
6:18-20)
d. (for the
sake of clarifying the traditional saying), YM pointed out, if the Holy Spirit
is only IN the people who have "received the Holy Spirit evidenced by
speaking in tongues", then the believer who has been baptized but for 50
years had not received the Holy Spirit nor speak in tongue, this person's body
is NOT a temple of the Holy Spirit (because the Holy Spirit is not IN him, he
was merely baptized and reborn)? If this is the case, if such person commits
adultery during these 50 years, what basis could the church use to accuse him
of defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit? Paul said, "Do you not know
that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have
received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore
honor God with your bodies." Those who have been baptized cannot be
sexually immoral! Is this not a clear illustration of the Holy Spirit being IN
anyone who has received the water baptism?
Referring to
the newly invented common belief in 2010, that says 'the speaking of tongues is a
prerequisite to being filled by the Holy Spirit', this is entirely different from
the century-old, traditional common teaching of the TJC! This newly
invented common belief implies that those who do not speak in tongues
cannot be filled by the Holy Spirit; that without the infilling of the Holy
Spirit, the fruit of the Holy Spirit cannot result; and that charitable deeds done
by those who cannot speak in tongues belong to the flesh and are considered
fruits born of charity only. When this statement was made, it cannot have been simply due to a slip of the tongue. It was intentionally contradictory to the idea that those whose bodies has been redeemed will have God's Spirit within them and that regardless of whether they have received the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, they must still rely on the Holy Spirit
within them to bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit!
This is YM's
summary response to the comments posted on HBL. If people wish to continue
claiming that YM espouses 'receiving the Holy Spirit does not necessitate the
speaking of tongues', or 'denies receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in
tongues', or 'violates the century-old traditional belief of the Holy Spirit',
then I can only feel very sorry for you indeed...
Let's look at Pr. Chin's analysis point by point
"The problem is that he views receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues is not an absolute requirement"
I have to say I read, re-read, and re-re-read this writing and nowhere do I see the contention from Pr. Yang that receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues is not an absolute requirement. In fact, there are multiple places where he explicitly says exactly the opposite. I've highlighted these in red in the transcript above.
In fact, the only hint of any opinion to the contrary was when he cited the opinion of Elder S.T. Hsieh, one of the most beloved and wise elders of our church.
In fact, the only hint of any opinion to the contrary was when he cited the opinion of Elder S.T. Hsieh, one of the most beloved and wise elders of our church.
So what are the points he's making?
The first point seems to be that even if someone is baptized but has not received the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, he or she is still considered a child of God. This person was dead in their sins and made alive in Christ. Christ is their life. Christ is all and in all.
Their life of faith isn't "on hold" until they receive the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. They don't have license to commit adultery because their bodies are "not yet temples of the Holy Spirit". No, God's spirit can work within them and they can do good deeds through the help of the Spirit of God--the Holy Spirit.
Their life of faith isn't "on hold" until they receive the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. They don't have license to commit adultery because their bodies are "not yet temples of the Holy Spirit". No, God's spirit can work within them and they can do good deeds through the help of the Spirit of God--the Holy Spirit.
Another point he's making is the same one that I raised in my own post--that he, like I, disagree vehemently with the assertion that "speaking in tongues is the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit".
How is any of what he said "heresy"?
"He does not object to praying for the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit by tongues speaking but he does not think it is an absolute necessity."
Again, sorry, I just don't see anywhere where this is said nor even implied.
He cites scripture that says that once you are baptized the spirit of God is within you. He says that on top of this, you also need to pursue the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.
Where in the world in the passage above is it said that the latter is not an absolute necessity? Again, no less than four times does he stress that "receiving the Holy Spirit by tongues" (sic) is absolutely a necessity. Where is the "heresy"?
He cites scripture that says that once you are baptized the spirit of God is within you. He says that on top of this, you also need to pursue the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.
Where in the world in the passage above is it said that the latter is not an absolute necessity? Again, no less than four times does he stress that "receiving the Holy Spirit by tongues" (sic) is absolutely a necessity. Where is the "heresy"?
From what I can tell, this is just a matter of semantics. If he said that "when you're baptized the Spirit of God is with you" instead of "when you're baptized the Holy Spirit is in you", perhaps that would minimize the confusion? But are these statements really contradictory to each other except in the more punctilious and legalistic of ways?
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree on that point, from everything I'm reading, it's a very, very big stretch to call any of this "heresy". Again, ironically, the only thing I see approaching a false teaching is not anything that YM Yang said, but this notion that "speaking in tongues is the sign of someone being filled with the Holy Spirit". If Pr. Yang was censured and excommunicated for what he said, shouldn't those who are responsible for coming up with that blatantly false teaching also be judged with the same measure?
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree on that point, from everything I'm reading, it's a very, very big stretch to call any of this "heresy". Again, ironically, the only thing I see approaching a false teaching is not anything that YM Yang said, but this notion that "speaking in tongues is the sign of someone being filled with the Holy Spirit". If Pr. Yang was censured and excommunicated for what he said, shouldn't those who are responsible for coming up with that blatantly false teaching also be judged with the same measure?
Will you kindly send all your review to GA ministers please? What would you do after posting all these to here ?
ReplyDeleteI am confused with your interpretation!
ReplyDelete1) So YM Yang is saying the holy spirit we received when we first baptised is not the holy spirit of promise (ie. the seal of salvation)? since we must keep praying for the holy spirit of promise (seal)?
2) So if the person dies without receiving the "Promised holy spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongue", even though he received the holy spirit the moment he baptised will he still be saved?
3) If Q2 is a "yes", then what kind of spirit is YM Yang talking about? (i.e the spirit that we received when we baptised vs the promised (seal) of the holy spirit)
4) From what i understand from the article, the TJC stance is the promise holy spirit (seal) received is only identifiable only when the member speaks in tongue. Where else in YM Yang stance, he split the holy spirit into 2 aspect: a) holy spirit received when we baptized, b) holy spirit (promised seal) evidence by tongue speaking that we must pray for. Unless, it is clarify what kind of spirit he is referring to at each category a and b. I shall reserve my judgement on whether the church is wrong to excommunicate him.
Great questions, and I think some of them might be covered in subsequent posts, but I'll also try to summarize my own understanding here (and apologies in advance that this comment is going to be the length of yet another post :P).
DeleteI'll preface by reiterating what I said in the post. I don't necessarily understand everything 100% myself. But the way to get to an understanding is by doing exactly what you're doing--asking questions. Not just to a minister when he visits your church but everyone, from the eldest member of your church to the 10 year old child. And most importantly the Lord. IMO, only God can reveal the truth behind spiritual matters in your heart--everything else is just an approximation using our limited minds. But it happens that we have the Spirit of Truth, so it's really shouldn't be that hard.
The core problem, I think, comes when we try to define spiritual matters in physical terms. But I think the matters of the spirit are not necessarily things we can reason with our human minds. That's why Jesus said that some are "ever seeing but never perceiving". The people he talked about focused on what they saw with their eyes and understood with their minds but never opened their hearts to see from a spiritual perspective. And so I think step one is for ALL of us to perhaps refrain from trying to solve these things with logic and word puzzles and instead get on our knees and ask God to open our hearts.
That said, if I may, there's one slight flaw in the way you worded your question as well as something you said in one of your other comments. I tried to make it clear in what I wrote but I'll say it again. There is one Holy Spirit. There aren't multiple Holy Spirits, there aren't different "levels" of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. There is only one God, and there is only one Holy Spirit, which is God. However, when Scripture talks about the Holy Spirit, it talks about the Spirit in different contexts.
Here's my personal take on how to reconcile these things.
In Psalm 51:11, when David was broken because Nathan confronted him about his adultery with Bathsheba, he implored God, "do not take your Holy Spirit from me". In Isaiah 63:11, the prophet suggested that God "set his Holy Spirit among" the people of Israel. In 2 Chronicles 15:1, the Spirit of God came on Azariah and in 2 Chronicles 24:20 the Spirit of God came on Zechariah. In Matthew 1:18, Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit. If you want to see more examples, just go to your favorite Bible web site and search for "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit of God".
None of these were the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that Jesus sent after his resurrection. But the Holy Spirit still worked mightily within these people.
We have gotten to a point in our church's teachings where some seem to believe that every mention of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament necessarily refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We come up with all kinds of logic to explain how 1 John 4:2, Romans 8:14, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Peter 4:14, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 cannot possibly be referring to anyone except someone who has not yet received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Putting all your human logic and reasoning aside, when you think about that with the eyes of your heart, does it make sense?
Couldn't another plausible explanation be that while you need to pursue the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by speaking in tongues, nonetheless the Holy Spirit (or if you prefer, "Jesus Christ" or "the Spirit of God") can and will work with you even if that hasn't happened yet? Why is it sacreligious to say that God abides in you when you take the Holy Communion and receive foot washing but NOT when you are baptized? In any case, isn't that even worth discussing rather than throwing out anyone who asks the question?
It should be a very, very simple concept but for some reason it's become so complicated.
Something else that I agree with Pr. Yang on is that as a church, we make way too many "checklists" when it comes to salvation. Did I get baptized? Check. Do I speak in tongues? Check. Do I take the Holy Communion? Check. Did I get my feet washed? Check. Do I keep the Sabbath? Check.
DeleteAnd yet there will be plenty of people who checked off all five items who will be unpleasantly surprised on the Last Day. They'll be among those who cry out "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons in in your name perform many miracles"? If we adhere to the letter of our doctrines but fail to recognize the meaning behind them, put them into practice, and use them to mature in our faith, what was the point?
As for "who will be saved", the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that these questions are a waste of time. Will infants who can't pray for the Holy Spirit be saved? Will TJC members who were baptized in a cistern be saved? Will TJC members who died without receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit be saved? Will Mother Theresa be saved? Will the Iraqi and Syrian Christians who died for Christ be saved?
When Jesus said "let the dead bury their own dead", I think in many ways we was referring to questions like this. These are just intellectual exercises. If these people are no longer with us, their souls are in God's hands now. It's not up to us to decide one way or another. What is it up to us to do? To "go and proclaim the kingdom of God".
And proclaiming the kingdom of God doesn't mean to go out and proclaim the ten basic beliefs. It means to go out and proclaim that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". That's where we start. And then the five basic doctrines and the ten beliefs follow. Not the other way around.
That's my take. As for your judgement of whether the church was wrong to excommunicate Pr. Yang, that's a decision you need to come up with on your own, preferably with deep prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not debates on blogs. But I hope all of this gives you some food for thought.
You got to wonder, what's the point of "send all your view to GA ministers"? What's going to happen? what positive action could possibly be develop to move the church forward? TJC around the world already heard enough from the pulpit which suppose to speak teaching from the Bible, instead all we get pounded every other week is claims that YM Yang say this heresy and that heresy, when in fact the evidence brought against him is the heresy.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the post from Steve is clear, so the world can see WDC and all those people who attend the meeting did not carefully consider the evidence against YM Yang, simply went ahead and vote to excommunicate him.
So in history, people can know all those meeting people say ïn the name of Jesus this and that.. They have present to God their own offerings, may God judge and rebuke them.
While I agree with your sentiment overall that presenting this to the GA ministers will likely not make any difference, I have to admit I do take some exception with the last sentence. Just as we implore them not to break bruised reeds and snuff out smoldering wicks, I think we need to apply the same thing to ourselves.
DeleteAt the risk of sounding like Luke Skywalker, there is still good in the GA and the IA and the WDC, I can feel it. In fact there's plenty of it. But this one issue is where I just believe there was a big misunderstanding.
I hope and pray that the words I wrote are not used to condemn others but somehow can help open eyes and hearts so that we could somehow start some kind of reconciliation. As I write this I know how impossible this sounds given all the hurt, all the insults, all the pain that has transpired. But our God specializes in the impossible.
The biblical word is a two edge sword, if the person open their eyes it cleanses them, if the person don't open their eyes and continue with it, condemnation already falls on them.
DeleteSome misunderstanding can be reverse, in terms of stood down IA preacher, excommunicating him in WDC, maximum broadcasting it around the world with all official capacity, there is NO possible reverse that could ever happen. Whoever you believe is good in GA, IA, and WDC, they have done too little too late. Under what capacity do you possibly think they going to do? (with all those article in Manna, Holy Spirit monthly condemning YM Yang and his teaching, and those "supposedly loyal follower"), and month in month out promoting their decision (whatever it may be) is the one linked with our heavenly Father? They have made it impossible, because that's exactly what they wanted.
Our God specialized in the impossible, only to the race Israel has this impossible made possible covenant, as for gentile convert, there is Matthew 7:21-23 for them.