The first seminar is in 9/9/2012 in Baldwin Park.
(A) YM views that praying for the Holy Spirit, receiving the
Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues is only grace upon grace.
(2012.09.09.Baldwin Park, JobQ&A Part1.)(39:10-41:22)(mp3.6)
-YM says that traditionally, we say that one who speaks in
tongues is one who has received the Holy Spirit. Jesus is in him, and he is in
Jesus. Yet he still has to partake the Holy Communion. Why? This is to allow
Jesus to live in him and he in the Lord, so that he can be resurrected on the
last day. ..
-One who does not speak in tongues, when he partakes the
Holy Communion, will Jesus be in him? Jesus will. If Jesus is in him, is the Holy
Spirit in him? One who does not speak in tongues can through the Holy Communion
allow Jesus to be in him. Jesus said that one who takes my flesh and drinks my
blood, I am in him and he in Me… You definitely cannot deny this fact. You cannot
deny that one who does not speak in tongues has the Holy Spirit in him, has the
Lord in him.
- Some may say, since you say this, then we do not need to
pray for the Holy Spirit.
This is the crux of the matter. Look at this – one who already
has the Holy Spirit in him, why does he need to partake the Holy Communion?
This is called grace upon grace. After you are baptized you become part of the
body of Christ. The body of Christ cannot be without the Holy Spirit. You
become the temple of the Holy Spirit, it’s impossible you don’t have the Holy
Spirit, you surely do have.. But you must further have grace upon grace.
Analysis:
1. Praying for the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues is
grace upon grace. This is not a wrong saying. Speaking in tongues is a grace
that God gives.
- Speaking in tongues, however, is an absolutely necessary
grace upon grace. If speaking in tongues is merely grace upon grace and without
it you can enter the Heavenly Kingdom since you already have the Holy Spirit in
us, then itis a deviation from our basic beliefs.
2. This is the same belief as other churches. They do not
deny speaking in tongues. They also pray for the Holy Spirit and speak in
tongues.
-However, they say that speaking in tongues is only a gift,
grace upon grace. This is not what everyone must absolutely pray for.
-Having it is grace while not having it is alright. Because
when you believe in the Lord, you already have the Holy Spirit in you
- tongue speaking is only a gift and merely grace upon
grace.
3. The Bible says that receiving the Holy Spirit is the
guarantee of the heavenly inheritance (Eph 1:13-14)
-while speaking in tongues is the evidence of receiving the
Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5;2:1-
-Therefore praying for the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking
in tongues is an absolutely necessary grace upon grace.
- but to YM, it is only grace upon grace, not an absolutely
necessary grace upon grace. This is where he has deviated.
The more I go through these analyses the more uncomfortable I get, because I still can't shake the feeling that something is very wrong. I can't tell if these words are deliberately being taken out of context to attack Pr. Yang, which would be bad, or if our church has gotten to the point where we come to rely so much on preserving the letter of the dogma that we use to indoctrinate our members that we've become completely unable or unwilling to open our hearts to explore the spirit and deeper truths behind our basic beliefs. Which would be much worse.
In what I see as a trend with this "evidence", there are over 5 hours of audio of this particular seminar in Baldwin Park where Pr. Yang spoke on the book of Job. And yet out of these 300 minutes, the "proof" that Pr. Yang preaches "deviant teachings" and "heresy" comes down to two minutes.
Is that really the bar that we're setting for firing preachers and excommunicating members? For heaven's sake, if you give me any 300 minutes of sermons from any minister of the True Jesus Church, past, present, or future, I guarantee I can find two minutes of them saying something that is stated ineloquently, imprecisely, or just wrong. If Pr. Yang were really a reprobate and a heretic, wouldn't it be a lot easier for everyone to see clear examples of it all over the place instead of having to have dozens of people looking for needles in a haystack?
You might come back to me and say, yes, but here Pr. Yang is preaching heresy about the Holy Spirit.
So again, let's look at what he said in full context. I'll start the transcript from the 35:38 mark. If you want to hear the audio for yourself, you can download it here.
Let's look at a Bible verse. We need to follow the Bible. Let's read 1 Corinthians 6:19.
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.
"You were bought at a price". Most of us understand that this is talking about baptism. Jesus paid the price with his blood.
It's written very clearly here that someone who's been through baptism has the spirit of God within them--their bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. If you insist on saying that someone who is baptized does not have God's spirit in them, then we need to tell them that it's okay for them to go out and commit sins, because their bodies would not be considered a temple of the Holy Spirit. The reason you tell them not to commit sins because the spirit of God is within them--their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.
After you're baptized you become a part of the body of Christ, right? You can't say that there are members of the body of Christ that do not have God's spirit, that's impossible. So here it says clearly, everyone who was bought with a price has God's spirit living in them.
Let's slowly explore this.
Someone who speaks in tongues has the Holy Spirit in them. Jesus said when you receive the Holy Spirit, I am in you and you in me. Then let me ask you--then does this person need to take the Holy Communion?
Does he need to?
What's the purpose of the Holy Communion? Jesus said those who eat my flesh and drink my blood, I abide in them and they abide in me.
So can someone who has received the promised Holy Spirit who speaks in tongues decide not to take the Holy Communion? Can they say, "Jesus is already in me, so there's no point in me taking Communion".
Someone who speaks in tongues and has the Holy Spirit is in Jesus and Jesus is in him. But he still needs to take the Holy Communion. Why? Jesus said clearly in John 6, "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." This person might argue, "but Jesus is already in me". But that doesn't matter--he still needs to partake of the Holy Communion.
Now let's think of someone who's been baptized but who hasn't received the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues--when he partakes of the Holy Communion, is Jesus within him? Yes. And if Jesus abides in him, does that mean the Holy Spirit is in him? So you cannot say that someone who cannot speak in tongues cannot have the Holy Spirit--have God's spirit--in them.
So let's go back to 1 Corinthians. Someone who's been baptized definitely has God's spirit in them. But some will then conclude that they then don't need to pray for the Holy Spirit. But this is as fallacious as someone who claims that they have received the Holy Spirit and consequently do not need to partake of the Holy Communion. They need to do both, they can't say that God's spirit is already in me so I only need to do one and not the other. This is something called grace upon grace. Similarly, if you've been baptized into God's body, there's no chance that God's body does not have God's spirit in it. Members of God's body are temples of the Holy Spirit. But you absolutely need to add grace on grace.
I admit, it took me a while to understand this, mainly because for 50 years the totality of my understanding of the Holy Spirit has been those 20 words in the Basic Beliefs. But what was the purpose of our Basic Beliefs in the first place? Weren't they intended just to be a mnemonic by which we could remember the core beliefs that our church holds--literally, "the basics"? How then have they turned into the totality of our worship?
What's Pr. Yang's point here? Ironically, it's totally the opposite of what this analysis says. He never once said that receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by prayer in tongues is unnecessary. He just said that in a person's life of faith, God's spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) dwells in them after they are baptized, and Jesus Christ (i.e. the Holy Spirit) abides in them when they partake of the Holy Communion. And he is saying that it's not a contradiction when Scripture says these things and then in other places says that you need to pray for the promised Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues.
Is that really "heresy"? Do these statements really contradict each other? And if so, should we redact those verses in Scripture so that Scripture can match our "basic belief" about the Holy Spirit more tidily?
And importantly--not once does he even come close to implying, as he is repeatedly accused of doing, that it is NOT necessary to pray for the promised Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.
As I mentioned in the last post, maybe Pr. Yang could have averted confusion by using phrases like "God's spirit" and "the spirit of Jesus Christ" instead of "the Holy Spirit". But given that another of this church's basic beliefs is the "One True God", why is it that Pr. Yang is being accused of "heresy" for using these phrases interchangeably and not invoking Trinitarian distinctions?
Is it possible that Pr. Yang is interpreting 1 Corinthians 6:19 incorrectly? Maybe the apostle Paul in writing this implied that the verse ONLY applied to those who received "the promised Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues", and because this was "obvious" to everyone in the Corinthian church he didn't bother to make that distinction. Is this the case? And if do, does that apply equally to other verses like Ephesians 3:16 or Galatians 5:16? Honestly, I'm not sure of the answer myself. We're getting into deep topics that involve the spiritual realm, and no amount of logic, debate, reasoning, or hermeneutics will solve. This requires spiritual wisdom and the humility to accept whatever the truth is.
But one thing I'm sure of is this. Once again, I don't see "heresy" here, and in fact I don't see anything that is not completely consistent with the Truth. I see a minister explaining his understanding of how to reconcile seemingly conflicting passages in scripture and explore on a deeper level how God's spirit works in the believers' lives. To take these sincere and reasonable explanations of Scripture and blow them up into a case for defrocking and excommunication seems absurdly harsh.
And again, there are those who say that Pr. Yang's mistake here is in discussing these things in public. Really? Then how would we be different than the Gnostics who said that only a select group of people were qualified to discuss deeper spiritual concepts? How would we be different than the Catholic church who confers infallibility on the Pope and the Cardinals?
And once again, I'll note that ALL of these pieces of "evidence" were spoken in sessions where the attendees were predominantly long-time members who were well into a "solid food" stage of their faith. Is exploring the truth in this way really a reason to kick someone out of the church?
If we have the Holy Spirit and have faith in God, why are we afraid of exploring "controversial" topics together? And again, I don't really see "controversy" here, unless you're going to insist that Scripture is wrong and that God's spirit will NOT work within those who are baptized and the spirit of Jesus Christ does NOT abide in those who partake of the Holy Communion.
For those who continue to close your ears because you feel an obligation to "defend" the church's "basic beliefs", did you know that at one time in our church's history, one of our "basic beliefs" was that it was a sin to see a medical doctor, because we only had one doctor, Jesus Christ? And did you know that for nearly 20 years there was intense disagreement by our church's early workers about the practice of foot washing? Yet somehow, through the guidance of the Spirit and the humility of the workers, we as a church came to understand deeper truths than those who went before us, mainly because our church members over the years have been humble enough to open their ears to what the Spirit revealed to them. Why is it that now some people seem to get so threatened and seem intent on "freezing" our church's understanding of the truth where it is (again, over things that to most are merely trivial semantic differences)?
This is not to say that we need to throw away our basic beliefs and start from scratch--and again not once did I hear Pr. Yang even come close to implying that, as the accusations against him seem to imply. But for those who wish to shut down any discussion, other opinions, and questions, aren't you putting a muzzle on God's power? I'll say it again, what are you afraid of?
In what I see as a trend with this "evidence", there are over 5 hours of audio of this particular seminar in Baldwin Park where Pr. Yang spoke on the book of Job. And yet out of these 300 minutes, the "proof" that Pr. Yang preaches "deviant teachings" and "heresy" comes down to two minutes.
Is that really the bar that we're setting for firing preachers and excommunicating members? For heaven's sake, if you give me any 300 minutes of sermons from any minister of the True Jesus Church, past, present, or future, I guarantee I can find two minutes of them saying something that is stated ineloquently, imprecisely, or just wrong. If Pr. Yang were really a reprobate and a heretic, wouldn't it be a lot easier for everyone to see clear examples of it all over the place instead of having to have dozens of people looking for needles in a haystack?
You might come back to me and say, yes, but here Pr. Yang is preaching heresy about the Holy Spirit.
So again, let's look at what he said in full context. I'll start the transcript from the 35:38 mark. If you want to hear the audio for yourself, you can download it here.
Let's look at a Bible verse. We need to follow the Bible. Let's read 1 Corinthians 6:19.
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.
"You were bought at a price". Most of us understand that this is talking about baptism. Jesus paid the price with his blood.
It's written very clearly here that someone who's been through baptism has the spirit of God within them--their bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. If you insist on saying that someone who is baptized does not have God's spirit in them, then we need to tell them that it's okay for them to go out and commit sins, because their bodies would not be considered a temple of the Holy Spirit. The reason you tell them not to commit sins because the spirit of God is within them--their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.
After you're baptized you become a part of the body of Christ, right? You can't say that there are members of the body of Christ that do not have God's spirit, that's impossible. So here it says clearly, everyone who was bought with a price has God's spirit living in them.
Let's slowly explore this.
Someone who speaks in tongues has the Holy Spirit in them. Jesus said when you receive the Holy Spirit, I am in you and you in me. Then let me ask you--then does this person need to take the Holy Communion?
Does he need to?
What's the purpose of the Holy Communion? Jesus said those who eat my flesh and drink my blood, I abide in them and they abide in me.
So can someone who has received the promised Holy Spirit who speaks in tongues decide not to take the Holy Communion? Can they say, "Jesus is already in me, so there's no point in me taking Communion".
Someone who speaks in tongues and has the Holy Spirit is in Jesus and Jesus is in him. But he still needs to take the Holy Communion. Why? Jesus said clearly in John 6, "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." This person might argue, "but Jesus is already in me". But that doesn't matter--he still needs to partake of the Holy Communion.
Now let's think of someone who's been baptized but who hasn't received the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues--when he partakes of the Holy Communion, is Jesus within him? Yes. And if Jesus abides in him, does that mean the Holy Spirit is in him? So you cannot say that someone who cannot speak in tongues cannot have the Holy Spirit--have God's spirit--in them.
So let's go back to 1 Corinthians. Someone who's been baptized definitely has God's spirit in them. But some will then conclude that they then don't need to pray for the Holy Spirit. But this is as fallacious as someone who claims that they have received the Holy Spirit and consequently do not need to partake of the Holy Communion. They need to do both, they can't say that God's spirit is already in me so I only need to do one and not the other. This is something called grace upon grace. Similarly, if you've been baptized into God's body, there's no chance that God's body does not have God's spirit in it. Members of God's body are temples of the Holy Spirit. But you absolutely need to add grace on grace.
I admit, it took me a while to understand this, mainly because for 50 years the totality of my understanding of the Holy Spirit has been those 20 words in the Basic Beliefs. But what was the purpose of our Basic Beliefs in the first place? Weren't they intended just to be a mnemonic by which we could remember the core beliefs that our church holds--literally, "the basics"? How then have they turned into the totality of our worship?
What's Pr. Yang's point here? Ironically, it's totally the opposite of what this analysis says. He never once said that receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by prayer in tongues is unnecessary. He just said that in a person's life of faith, God's spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) dwells in them after they are baptized, and Jesus Christ (i.e. the Holy Spirit) abides in them when they partake of the Holy Communion. And he is saying that it's not a contradiction when Scripture says these things and then in other places says that you need to pray for the promised Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues.
Is that really "heresy"? Do these statements really contradict each other? And if so, should we redact those verses in Scripture so that Scripture can match our "basic belief" about the Holy Spirit more tidily?
And importantly--not once does he even come close to implying, as he is repeatedly accused of doing, that it is NOT necessary to pray for the promised Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.
As I mentioned in the last post, maybe Pr. Yang could have averted confusion by using phrases like "God's spirit" and "the spirit of Jesus Christ" instead of "the Holy Spirit". But given that another of this church's basic beliefs is the "One True God", why is it that Pr. Yang is being accused of "heresy" for using these phrases interchangeably and not invoking Trinitarian distinctions?
Is it possible that Pr. Yang is interpreting 1 Corinthians 6:19 incorrectly? Maybe the apostle Paul in writing this implied that the verse ONLY applied to those who received "the promised Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues", and because this was "obvious" to everyone in the Corinthian church he didn't bother to make that distinction. Is this the case? And if do, does that apply equally to other verses like Ephesians 3:16 or Galatians 5:16? Honestly, I'm not sure of the answer myself. We're getting into deep topics that involve the spiritual realm, and no amount of logic, debate, reasoning, or hermeneutics will solve. This requires spiritual wisdom and the humility to accept whatever the truth is.
But one thing I'm sure of is this. Once again, I don't see "heresy" here, and in fact I don't see anything that is not completely consistent with the Truth. I see a minister explaining his understanding of how to reconcile seemingly conflicting passages in scripture and explore on a deeper level how God's spirit works in the believers' lives. To take these sincere and reasonable explanations of Scripture and blow them up into a case for defrocking and excommunication seems absurdly harsh.
And again, there are those who say that Pr. Yang's mistake here is in discussing these things in public. Really? Then how would we be different than the Gnostics who said that only a select group of people were qualified to discuss deeper spiritual concepts? How would we be different than the Catholic church who confers infallibility on the Pope and the Cardinals?
And once again, I'll note that ALL of these pieces of "evidence" were spoken in sessions where the attendees were predominantly long-time members who were well into a "solid food" stage of their faith. Is exploring the truth in this way really a reason to kick someone out of the church?
If we have the Holy Spirit and have faith in God, why are we afraid of exploring "controversial" topics together? And again, I don't really see "controversy" here, unless you're going to insist that Scripture is wrong and that God's spirit will NOT work within those who are baptized and the spirit of Jesus Christ does NOT abide in those who partake of the Holy Communion.
For those who continue to close your ears because you feel an obligation to "defend" the church's "basic beliefs", did you know that at one time in our church's history, one of our "basic beliefs" was that it was a sin to see a medical doctor, because we only had one doctor, Jesus Christ? And did you know that for nearly 20 years there was intense disagreement by our church's early workers about the practice of foot washing? Yet somehow, through the guidance of the Spirit and the humility of the workers, we as a church came to understand deeper truths than those who went before us, mainly because our church members over the years have been humble enough to open their ears to what the Spirit revealed to them. Why is it that now some people seem to get so threatened and seem intent on "freezing" our church's understanding of the truth where it is (again, over things that to most are merely trivial semantic differences)?
This is not to say that we need to throw away our basic beliefs and start from scratch--and again not once did I hear Pr. Yang even come close to implying that, as the accusations against him seem to imply. But for those who wish to shut down any discussion, other opinions, and questions, aren't you putting a muzzle on God's power? I'll say it again, what are you afraid of?
No comments:
Post a Comment