因為神是公義的 For God Is Just

教會相關，不喜勿入；關心教會者請務必看完 Disclaimer: This is church related; if you don't like the church then please ignore it, but if you care about the church then please finish reading it.

English translation is after the Chinese text

From http://blog.xuite.net/owenchaolin/deutschland/61721102

不要作糊塗人，要明白主的旨意如何。(弗5:17)

在這件聯總停職楊昱民傳道的事件中，有弟兄姐妹問：你怎麼知道停職楊傳道不是神的旨意？我想，對於大部分從小生長在教會中的弟兄姐妹而言，順服神的旨意是最重要的事。

沒錯，明白神的旨意是很重要的事。問題是，你怎麼知道什麼是神的旨意？順服聯總的決定是神的旨意？還是查清聯總是神的旨意？

百姓被救贖出了埃及，在西乃山下聆聽公義聖潔的神言律法，跟著雲柱火柱的帶領，準備上去得那應許的流奶與蜜之地。十二首領進入迦南美地窺探，十首領卻失落了信心，報了惡信給百姓，百姓哀哭，決定回到埃及。真神大怒，好不容易因著摩西的代求，最後以四十年為期刑罰不信的百姓，直到他們全然死在曠野。試問，神的旨意到底是要百姓四十年前就進入迦南地？還是要他們繞了四十年才進去？

百姓在曠野吃膩了從天而降的瑪哪，抱怨過去在埃及有菜有肉的豐富。真神聽到了，吩咐摩西要百姓準備接肉，因為明天早上必讓百姓吃肉吃到從鼻孔中噴了出來。摩西甚為驚訝，還跟神說這麼多的百姓怎麼可能有那麼多的肉可以吃？果不其然，神刮起了大風，片地滿了鵪鶉，百姓大喜，卻不知在肉都尚未嚼爛時，神的刑罰已經來到，那一日，最重的災殃降下。試問，神的旨意到底是要給百姓吃肉？還是不給百姓吃肉？

百姓若有信心，四十年前就可進入迦南；百姓若懂知足，不必承受基伯羅哈他瓦的痛。這裡是人的作為不合神原本心意的例子。

摩西將近離開世界，在約旦河東曠野再次重申神言律法，其中不斷提到，等你們進入那應許的迦南美地後，斷不可忘記帶你們出埃及的神；絕對不可以學習當地外族的風俗與宗教，去侍奉那金、銀、木、石雕刻而成的偶像，否則真神必會滅絕你們。豈料約書亞之後，百姓果然行此惡道，到了王國時期更是變本加厲，從君王開始帶頭拜偶像，至終真神忍痛滅絕百姓，將其流放外邦！試問，難道百姓拜偶像是神的旨意？神的旨意難道不是希望百姓不要拜偶像嗎？

無論真神有多大的不願意，百姓還是去拜了偶像。換句話說，不是每件在地上發生的事都是神的旨意。

我要為我所親愛的唱歌，是我愛者的歌，論他葡萄園的事：我所親愛的有葡萄園在肥美的山岡上。他刨挖園子，撿去石頭，栽種上等的葡萄樹，在園中蓋了一座樓，又鑿出壓酒池；指望結好葡萄，反倒結了野葡萄。(賽5:1-2)

而這段以賽亞書中的葡萄園之歌更是清楚表明，真神指望百姓能成好葡萄，百姓卻成了野葡萄。那麼什麼是葡萄的好壞？

萬軍之耶和華的葡萄園就是以色列家；他所喜愛的樹就是猶太人。他指望的是公平，誰知倒有暴虐(流人血)；指望的是公義，誰知倒有冤聲。(賽5:7)

當審判官、祭司、人民不再存記公平正義的精神之後，當國家忘了神聖律法的公義之後，就算這是萬國之中所獨選的民，在神眼中也不過是野葡萄！

有了這樣的觀念後，我們可以再問一次聯總與楊昱民傳道之間的問題：重點不是聯總停職楊昱民傳道是不是神的旨意；而是聯總停職楊昱民傳道是否公義？過程公不公平？

因為行神所喜悅的事絕對是神的旨意！

因為耶和華是公義的，他喜愛公義；正直人必得見他的面。(詩11:7)

 

 

 

第二個問題：如果不順服的話，不是會造成教會的混亂與分裂嗎？而這樣的混亂與分裂豈不正是魔鬼的工作嗎？

這樣的智慧不是從上頭來的，乃是屬地的，屬情慾的，屬鬼魔的。在何處有嫉妒、紛爭，就在何處有擾亂和各樣的壞事。(雅3:15-16)

誠然如經上所記，何處有嫉妒、紛爭，就在何處有擾亂和各樣的壞事。問題是，今天的爭端是誰造成的？難道不是因為停職了楊昱民傳道嗎？今天有那麼多人願意發出聲音，不就是因為他們認識楊昱民傳道是一位好傳道，而聯總停職的疑點太多嗎*？

況且據我所知，大部分要求查清楚這件事的兄姐，沒有任何一人願意教會混亂與分裂，相反地，這些兄姐就是因為不願意教會混亂與分裂，才要求事情一定要公開、公正、公平！

如果今天教會是用最開放的態度，最公正的說明，早就省去諸多的“混亂與分裂“。試問，今天的局面是誰應該要負起大部分的責任？明眼人早就了然於胸。

惟獨從上頭來的智慧，先是清潔，後是和平，溫良柔順，滿有憐憫，多結善果，沒有偏見，沒有假冒。(雅3:17)

 

 

 

第三是立場問題。A說B說謊，B說A腦袋有問題。雙方各持己見，互不相讓。請問，現在要判斷事情的真假，你要讓A當法官？B當法官？還是客觀的第三方C當法官？

你們聽訟，無論是弟兄彼此爭訟，是與同居的外人爭訟，都要按公義判斷。審判的時候，不可看人的外貌；聽訟不可分貴賤，不可懼怕人，因為審判是屬乎神的。(申1:16-17)

楊昱民傳道說聯總說謊，這是他的立場；聯總說楊傳道道理有問題，這是聯總的立場。最公正的方法就是成立第三方的調查委員會，讓第三方去調查，而這也是許多兄姐的意見與看法。

如果用世上的話語來說，今天的問題是聯總掌行政與司法兩權，如果楊昱民傳道控告聯總負責人說謊，還是同樣的人在當法官審判，豈不是對楊昱民傳道十分之不公平？所以在這件事上(因為聯總本身已經牽涉其中，無法維持客觀的立場)，要由第三方來裁決才是合乎聖經公義精神的作法(將司法權分離)。

有人說，難道聯總十多人作的決定是錯的嗎？總不會全部都錯吧？

當局者迷，旁觀者清。這與聯總負責人有多少沒有關係，關係是在他們是屬於聯總的，自己幫自己說話是人之常情(好聽一點是人情，難聽一點叫官官相衛！)。我們要的是真相！不是只會說自己很委屈、很不得已、很有愛心的公文！

請問明明知道成立一個調查委員會就可以平息紛爭的聯總，為何寧願花費一堆機票錢到處滅火，也不願意讓沒有參與其中的第三方來調查？會議當天的錄音還要求楊傳道刪除？這算不算是湮滅證據？

你要在耶和華你神所賜的各城裡，按著各支派設立審判官和官長。他們必按公義的審判判斷百姓。不可屈枉正直；不可看人的外貌。也不可受賄；(申16:18-20)

 

 

 

有人問，聯總這種作法難道不是一種靈巧的作法，為了除去對於教會有害的楊昱民傳道嗎？所以不得已，只好用些“不光明“的手段。

首先，聖經要我們以善勝惡，不是以惡報惡(羅12:21)！就算聯總認定楊昱民傳道有問題，為了保護教會而採用了不正的手段，這件事的手段就是錯的！不合聖經！

如果聯總骨子裡將楊昱民傳道當作異端，表面上卻是稱他為弟兄，這種虛為是耶穌所譴責的，與假冒為善的法利賽人沒有兩樣！

好吧！聯總如果用了“不光明“的手段的確是錯。那麼楊昱民傳道到底有沒有問題？

依照聯總停職後所發的兩封說明公文，他們認為楊昱民傳道有兩大罪狀：不尊真理與不照體制。

我想有一個很重要的大前提，如聖經所記：人無論犯什麼罪，做什麼惡，不可憑一個人的口作見證，總要憑兩三個人的口作見證才可定案。(申19:15)

當聯總說楊昱民傳道不照差派，不尊照聯總的決定時，請提出“兩三個見證人“的證據，請他們奉主耶穌聖名作見證，證明楊傳道真的不照差派！否則只是空口說白話！

真理方面的問題包括：1魔鬼來源的問題；2真理逐漸顯明的問題；3受洗後聖靈充滿的問題。

其中前兩者有經過真理研究會的討論，聖靈的問題並沒有進入真理研究會。先從最後一個問題講起：

如果一個真理相關的議題並沒有經過真理研究會討論，而是以行政公文直接發布聯總本身的看法，那我們還需要真理研究會幹麼？換句話說，用此聖靈問題來指責楊傳道的道理有問題是不對的！用行政公文來強調只是欲蓋彌彰！

而第二個議題在2008的真理研究會是通過的，在2010年被否決。此議題本身的題目是：真理一次交付，逐漸顯明。可以想像，2008年奉主耶穌聖名開會，結論是說：真理逐漸顯明是對的。2010年奉主耶穌聖名開會，結論是說：楊傳道提的真理逐漸顯明是錯的。從邏輯上來說，如果後者是對的，前者就會是對的(表示真理的確顯明了)；如果前者是對的，後者也會是對的(前者就是強調真理會逐漸顯明)，所以真理研究會的決定無論何者都支持了楊傳道的看法！

而魔鬼來源的問題2007年真理研究會的結論是：可以再討論，但不得公開傳講！聯總總是說楊昱民傳道違反結論，公開傳講且將資料放在網路。請問證據何在？請找出兩三個見證人，奉主耶穌聖名作見證！

聯總總是強調楊昱民傳道的道理有問題，影響了很多信徒，為了怕信徒跌倒，所以才不得已處理他。同樣地，請找出兩三個見證人，是親耳聽他說的，不是聽別人詮釋過的，奉主耶穌聖名作見證！如果沒有，主必審判！

人無論犯什麼罪，做什麼惡，不可憑一個人的口作見證，總要憑兩三個人的口作見證才可定案。(申19:15)

 

 

 

很多弟兄姐妹不願意相信，因為所在教會的傳道長執說這件事是楊傳道的錯，而教會的傳道是好傳道阿，所以講的話是對的。

沒錯！請相信跟你講的傳道的品德，但是請懷疑他的消息來源。大部分的傳道長執根本沒有見過楊昱民傳道，不會知道他是怎麼樣的人；而大部分的消息又是從聯總“高層“傳出，所以自然而然就會讓聽的人傾向聯總的立場。但是請注意，我們需要一個客觀公正的立場，不是一個偏頗聯總的立場！

當時，我囑咐你們的審判官說：你們聽訟，無論是弟兄彼此爭訟，是與同居的外人爭訟，都要按公義判斷。(申1:16)

 

 

 

最後是情感問題。很多弟兄姐妹很害怕這件事情，因為假設楊昱民傳道對於聯總的看法是對的，就代表某些德高望重的長老與傳道在說謊！這是一件很可怕的事！怎麼在教會當中，尤其他們又是帶領教會的人，會做出這樣的事呢？

請先不用害怕與擔心。在事情沒有清楚之前，聯總不一定錯，楊傳道也不一定對。假設楊傳道是錯的，那麼他應該要負責！並且還聯總眾長老傳道一個清白！假設聯總是錯的，那麼我們應該將謊言與權謀趕出教會！還楊傳道一個公道！

無論何者，不能是由聯總說了算數。如果沒有公正的第三方來審判，或是聯總不願意成立獨立的第三方來審判，那麼歷史永遠會記得。我想後人會解讀為聯總心虛吧！

所以鄭重呼籲目前“掌權“的帶領人，假設您們不願意走這一步，後來的人絕對會合理懷疑為什麼您們不敢，而現有的證據絕對是指向您們的不照規章，不按公義對待楊傳道。您們也沒有機會得到一個真正的清白(自己說自己清白效果很大嗎？)！

一個成立獨立第三方的動作可以免除人間司法的訴訟，可以有機會還自己清白，可以在歷史上留下負責的態度；若是不做，看來聯總阿！您的確心虛！

知道公義、將我訓誨存在心中的民，要聽我言！不要怕人的辱罵，也不要因人的毀謗驚惶。因為蛀蟲必咬他們，好像咬衣服；蟲子必咬他們，如同咬羊絨。惟有我的公義永遠長存，我的救恩直到萬代。(賽51:7-8)

 

-------

*至少有三件事實是聯總無法否認的：1.沒有查清署名中國長執會控告楊昱民傳道黑函內容之真假(現已有人具體指出其內容之錯謬)；2.林永基長老牽涉巴黎教會，造成巴黎教會混亂之事務，理應在此議案迴避主席之位，卻依然擔任主席；3.根據規章，聯總只能停職楊昱民的傳道，卻不能停職其由世界代表選出的聯總負責人，這是明顯的越權！

 

-------

我很不希望看到教會為了這件事對簿公堂，但是照我的猜測，聯總沒有這樣的勇氣與魄力成立獨立的第三方來調查；我很希望我猜錯。另一方面，這件事總有一天會清楚，也許是三年，也許是三十年，無論如何，我們是靠耶穌而得救，是因為進入了真教會；不是靠傳道長執，也不是靠聯總這個組織。請各位兄姐為此事代禱，但是請不要對教會失望。這是耶穌的教會！這是神的家！

有許多人直指楊昱民傳道是異端，是分裂份子，是魔鬼末世的工具。我很不願意用聖經嚇人，但是仔細看聖經的話，耶穌與使徒對教會的提醒都是：要防備假先知與假師傅(是從教會中出來的)！而這些假先知與假師傅都是用複數！舉例來說：

你們要防備假先知。他們到你們這裡來，外面披著羊皮，裡面卻是殘暴的狼。(太7:15)

且有好些假先知起來，迷惑多人。(太24:11)

從前在百姓中有假先知(false prophets)起來，將來在你們中間也必有假師傅(false teachers)，私自引進陷害人的異端，連買他們的主他們也不承認，自取速速的滅亡。(彼後2:1)

親愛的弟兄啊，一切的靈，你們不可都信，總要試驗那些靈是出於神的不是，因為世上有許多假先知已經出來了。(約壹4:1)

我沒有說聯總那些負責人是假先知與假師傅；我說的是末世的假先知與假師傅是複數！並不是單數！

當然，判別異端的重點是真理。如上所述，教會本身並沒有說楊傳道的道理是異端，事實上他”真理一次交付逐漸顯明”的觀點是被接受的(後被否決反而證明了更對)！魔鬼來源的問題也沒有說這是異端，反而是說可以再討論！聖靈的問題更別提了，聯總連讓真理研究會研究的勇氣都沒有！

耶穌也提醒我們，判斷的標準是行為：憑著他們的果子，就可以認出他們來。…..所以，憑著他們的果子就可以認出他們來。(太7:16, 20)

請仔細思考楊昱民傳道所做的工，包括他被停職後做的事。一個被停職後依然努力做工，傳福音的人，他的果子好還是不好？

把楊傳道當作異端的人請注意，我無法改變您的想法，但是審判台前假設耶穌說楊昱民是我忠心的好僕人時，您要如何回答耶穌？

判斷事情要依照證據，不是依照人情！聯總停職楊傳道一案不公不義，後提出的理由也沒有相關證據佐證，實在無法令人信服！人有其限制，不可能全知，但是行公義，好憐憫，絕對是神希望我們去做的事！

彼得和眾使徒回答說：順從神，不順從人，是應當的。(徒5:29)

從此就顯出誰是神的兒女，誰是魔鬼的兒女。凡不行義的就不屬神，不愛弟兄的也是如此。(約壹3:10)

就蒙恩得穿光明潔白的細麻衣。（這細麻衣就是聖徒所行的義。）(啟19:8)


“Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” (Eph 5:17)
Some brothers and sisters have asked, concerning the matter of the IA’s termination of Pr. YM Yang: “How do you know that it is not the will of God that Pr. Yang be terminated?” I think that the most important thing for most brothers and sisters who have grown up in the church is to submit to God’s will.
Yes, it is indeed very important to understand the will of God. But how do you know what God’s will is? Is it God’s will for us to submit to the IA’s decision? Or is it God’s will for us to make a thorough investigation of the IA’s doings?
The people were rescued from Egypt. At the foot of Mount Sinai, they listened to the righteous and holy God as He spoke the law. Led by the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire, they prepared to possess the promised land flowing with milk and honey. Twelve leaders entered the good land of Canaan to spy it out, but ten of these leaders lost faith and gave the people a bad report. The people lamented and decided to return to Egypt. The true God was greatly angered, and it was only because of Moses’ intercession that He finally relented and instead punished the unbelieving people for a period of forty years, so that they all perished in the wilderness. We may ask: Was it the will of God for the people to enter the land of Canaan forty years before? Or did He intend for them to wander around in the wilderness for forty years before entering Canaan?
In the wilderness, the people grew tired of eating the manna that fell from heaven and complained that they had had an abundance of vegetables and meat in Egypt. When the true God heard this, he instructed Moses to tell the people to prepare to eat meat, for from the next day, He would give the people meat to eat, until it came out of their nostrils. Moses was greatly astonished, and even asked God how so much meat could be provided for so many people? As expected, God sent a great wind and the land was covered with quails. The people rejoiced, but before the meat was chewed, God’s punishment arrived and He struck the people with a very great plague on that day. We may ask: Was it or was it not the will of God to give the people meat to eat?
If the people had had faith, they could have entered Canaan forty years before; if the people had known to be content, they would not have had to bear the pain they experienced in Kibroth Hattaavah. These are examples of times when the acts of men did not accord with the original intentions of God.
When Moses was about to leave this world, he repeated the law of God in the wilderness east of the river Jordan. He repeatedly told the Israelites that after they entered that good land of Canaan promised to them, they must not forget the God that had brought them up out of Egypt; that they must never adopt the customs and religions of the foreign tribes of Canaan, nor serve their graven idols of gold, silver, wooden and stone, lest the true God destroy them. However, after the time of Joshua, the people indeed went astray and took this evil course. This worsened during the period of the kings, when the kings led the people into idol worship, until finally, the true God reluctantly destroyed the people and left them in exile amongst the gentiles! We may ask: Was it really God’s will for the people to worship idols? Wasn’t God’s will actually that the people not worship idols?
Regardless of how unwilling the true God was for this to happen, the people still went ahead and worshipped idols. In other words, not everything that happens on earth is the will of God.

“Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes.” (Is 5:1-2)
This song of the vineyard in the book of Isaiah clearly reveals that the true God expected the people to bring forth good grapes, but they brought forth wild grapes instead. What, then, are good and bad grapes?

“For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; for righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.” (Is 5:7)
When the judges, the priests, and the people no longer retain a spirit of justice and righteousness, when a country has forgotten the righteousness of God’s holy law... even if these were to be the only chosen people from amongst all the nations, they are but wild grapes in God’s eyes!
With this in mind, we can once again turn to the issue of the IA and Pr. YM Yang. The point is not whether the IA’s termination of Pr. YM Yang was in accordance with God’s will, but whether the IA’s termination of Pr. YM Yang was righteous? Were the procedures used just?
Because it is most certainly the will of God for us to do things which are pleasing to Him!

“For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance beholds the upright.” (Ps 11:7)

The second question: Wouldn’t being unsubmissive create confusion and division in the church? And isn’t this very confusion and division the work of the devil?

“This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.” (Jas 3:15-16)
As it is recorded in the Bible, where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But who has caused this conflict of today? Has it not arisen because of the termination of Pr. YM Yang? So many people have willingly spoken up today --- is it not because they recognize that Pr. YM Yang is a good preacher, and that there are too many points of doubt concerning the IA’s termination of Pr. Yang?*
Moreover, as far as I know, amongst most of the brothers and sisters who ask that this matter be looked into, not one wishes for the church to be confused or divided. On the contrary, it is because these brothers and sisters are unwilling to see the church confused and divided that they have asked that the matter be handled openly, justly and fairly!
If the church had dealt with things in an open manner and given fair and impartial explanations, a great deal of “confusion and division” could have been avoided. We may ask: Who should assume most of the responsibility for the present situation? The answer should be clear to any discerning person.
“But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.” (Jas 3:17)

The third is a question of standpoint. A says B lied, B says there’s something wrong with A. Each side sticks to its own point of view, neither side giving way to the other. Now, in order to judge the truth of the matter, should we let A be the judge? Should we let B be the judge? Or should we let an objective third party, C, act as the judge?

“... ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s...’” (Deut 1:16-17)
Pr. YM Yang says that the IA are lying; this is his position. The IA says Pr. Yang’s teachings are problematic; this is the IA’s position. The most impartial way of resolving this would be to set up a third party commission of inquiry so that this third party can look into the matter. This is also the opinion and view of many brothers and sisters.
To put this in secular terms, the problem today is that the IA holds dual authority over both administrative and judicial matters. If Pr. YM Yang accuses the IA EXCO members of lying, these very same people will be acting as judges in the trial --- would this not be very unfair towards Pr. YM Yang? Therefore, this matter requires the adjudication of a third party (as the IA itself is involved and would be unable to maintain an objective position); such a course of action (the segregation of judicial authority from the IA) would be in accordance with the spirit of justice in the Bible.
Some may say: Can a decision made by more than ten IA members be wrong? Surely they can’t all be wrong?

Observers on the sidelines often see more clearly than those involved in a situation. The point is not how many IA EXCO members there are who made the decision, but that those concerned are all part of the IA. It is only human to speak with one’s own interests in mind (call it “human feelings” or call it “covering up for one another”!). What we want is the truth! Not just official documents saying how one has been wronged, or how one has no choice but to act against one’s will, or how one is acting out of love!
May we ask why the IA, knowing very well that simply setting up a commission of inquiry would settle this dispute, would rather spend a pile of money on plane tickets in trying to put out fires all over the place, than allow an uninvolved third party to carry out an investigation? Moreover, why did they demand that Pr. Yang delete the audio recording made on the day of the meeting? Would this be considered an act of destruction of evidence?

“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe...” (Deut 16:18-20)

Some may ask: Isn’t the IA simply using a clever method of getting rid of Pr. Yang, since he is causing harm to the church? It has no choice but to use “clandestine” methods.
First of all, the Bible requires us to overcome evil with good, not to repay evil with evil (Rom 12:21)! Even if the IA has determined that there is a problem with Pr. YM Yang, for it to use improper means to protect the church is wrong! It is unbiblical!
What if, deep down, the IA considers Pr. YM Yang to be a heretic, but calls him a brother on the surface? This is the sort of pretense condemned by Jesus and those who engage in such would be no different from the hypocritical Pharisees!
Very well! It would indeed be wrong if the IA were to have used “clandestine” methods. But what about Pr. YM Yang --- is there also a problem with him?
According to the two explanatory statements issued by the IA after the termination, Pr. YM Yang is guilty on two main counts: Not respecting the truth and not complying with the organization’s rules.
I think there is a very important prerequisite, as recorded in the Bible: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” (Deut 19:15)
The IA says that Pr. YM Yang has not complied with the postings assigned to him and not respected the decisions of the IA. Could the IA then please put forward the testimony of “two or three witnesses”, asking them to testify in the holy name of the Lord Jesus that Pr. Yang has indeed not complied with the postings assigned to him? If not, all this is just empty talk!

The questions concerning the truth include: 1) the question of the origin of Satan, 2) the question of the truth being gradually revealed, and 3) the question of being filled with the Holy Spirit after baptism.
The first two of these have been discussed in the Truth Research Committee (TRC); the question concerning the Holy Spirit has not. Let’s begin with the last of these questions:

If the IA’s own views concerning a topic relating to the truth can be announced in the form of administrative documents without first being discussed in the TRC, then why do we still need the TRC? In other words, using this topic concerning the Holy Spirit to accuse Pr. Yang of problematic teachings is wrong! Using administrative documents to highlight his so-called errors only makes the cover up more obvious!
The second topic was passed during the TRC meeting held in 2008, but this decision was overturned in 2010. The title of this topic was “Truth is entrusted once for all but is gradually revealed.” Can you imagine this? The conclusion of the meeting held in the holy name of the Lord Jesus in 2008 was: It is correct to say that the truth is gradually revealed. In 2010, a similar meeting held in the holy name of the Lord Jesus concluded: Pr. Yang’s proposal that the truth is gradually revealed is incorrect! By logic, if the latter conclusion is correct, the former conclusion must also be correct (since the truth has indeed been revealed); if the former conclusion is correct, then the latter must also be correct (since the former emphasizes that the truth will be revealed gradually). Thus, both the TRC’s decisions support the view of Pr. Yang!
Concerning the question of the origin of Satan, the conclusion of the TRC meeting held in 2007 was: there can be further discussion on this topic, but it should not be presented or discussed openly. The IA maintains that Pr. YM Yang has gone against this conclusion and openly preached on this topic and placed related material on the internet. May I ask what proof there is of this? Please find two or three witnesses who will testify of this in the holy name of the Lord Jesus!
The IA keeps stressing that there are problems with Pr. YM Yang’s teachings and that this has affected many believers. In order to prevent believers from stumbling, the IA has had no choice but to deal with him. As above, please find two or three witnesses who have personally heard him speak on this topic --- not witnesses who have heard others’ interpretations of his words --- and who will bear witness in the holy name of the Lord Jesus! If there are no such witnesses, God will judge the matter!

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” (Deut 19:15)

Because the preachers and ministers of the church claim that Pr. Yang is at fault, many brothers and sisters are reluctant to believe otherwise; since the preachers of the church are good preachers, what they say must be true!
Yes! Please do not doubt the moral character of the preacher who has given you the information, but do please question the source of his news. The majority of preachers and ministers have never even seen Pr. YM Yang and would not know what kind of a person he is. Furthermore, most of the news comes from the higher levels of the IA, so those hearing this news would naturally incline towards the IA’s position. But note: what we need is an objective and impartial standpoint, not one that is biased towards the IA!

“Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him.” (Deut 1:16)

The final question concerns the issue of emotions. Many brothers and sisters are fearful of the matter in hand, because if Pr. YM Yang’s views regarding the IA are correct, it would mean that certain highly respected elders and preachers have been lying! This is a terrible thing! How can they, as leaders of the church, do such things in the church?
There is no need to be afraid or worried before the matter has been clarified. The IA may not be in the wrong, and Pr. Yang may not be in the right. If Pr. Yang is at fault, then he should bear the responsibility and all the elders and preachers of the IA should have their name cleared! If the IA is at fault, then we should drive out the lies and trickery from the church and Pr. Yang should have his name cleared!
Whatever the case may be, the IA cannot be left with the final say. If there is no impartial third party to conduct a trial, or if the IA is unwilling to establish an independent third party adjudicator, then history will forever remember this matter. I believe that future generations will make the IA out to have been suffering from a guilty conscience!
Therefore I solemnly appeal to the current leaders in “power”: If you are unwilling to take this step, future generations --- with good reason --- will surely wonder why you did not dare to do so; existing evidence certainly suggests that you have not abided by the rules and regulations and have not treated Pr. Yang justly and righteously. Moreover, you will not be given the opportunity to clear your names (how effective can it be for one to assert one’s own innocence?)!
The establishment of an independent third party panel would obviate the need for secular judicial proceedings; it would provide an opportunity for you to demonstrate your innocence and leave for history a record of a responsible attitude. If you do not do this... ah, IA, it would look as if you really do have a guilty conscience!

“Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, you people in whose heart is My law: Do not fear the reproach of men, nor be afraid of their insults. For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but My righteousness will be forever, and My salvation from generation to generation.” (Is 51:7-8)
-------
*There are at least three facts which the IA cannot deny:

1. The IA did not properly attempt to verify the contents of China’s Board of Ministers’ anonymous letter of accusation against Pr. YM Yang (the falsehoods contained therein have now been specifically pointed out). 2. The matter of how Eld. Yung-Ji Lin involved himself in the affairs of Paris church and caused confusion in Paris church --- Eld. Lin should have avoided acting as chairman during the discussion concerning this motion, yet he remained in the role of chairman. 3. According to the regulations, the IA is only allowed to terminate YM Yang’s position as a preacher; it is not allowed to terminate his position as an IA EXCO member, since this is a position elected by the world delegates. The IA has obviously overstepped the bounds of its authority!
-------
I really do not wish to see the church go to court over this matter, but I’m guessing that the IA does not have the courage and boldness to establish an independent third party panel to investigate the issue; I very much hope that I am wrong. On the other hand, this matter will one day become clear. It may take three years, or it may take thirty years; regardless, we are saved in the true church through Jesus --- not through preachers or ministers, and not through the IA. Brothers and sisters, please pray for this matter, but do not lose hope in the church. This is the church of Jesus! This is the house of God!
Many people accuse Pr. YM Yang of being a heretic, a separatist, and an instrument of Satan in these end times. I am very reluctant to scare people using the Bible, but a careful reading of it will show that Jesus and the apostles always reminded the church to beware of false prophets and false teachers (these come from within the church)! Furthermore, these “false prophets” and “false teachers” are written of in the plural sense! For example:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” (Matt 7:15)

“Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.” (Matt 24:11)
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” (2 Pet 2:1)

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1)
I am not saying that the IA EXCO members are false prophets and false teachers; I am merely saying that the false prophets and false teachers of the end times are referred to in the plural sense and not the singular!
Of course, it is the truth which determines what is heretical. As noted above, the church itself has not said that Pr. Yang’s teachings are heretical. In fact, his view that “truth is entrusted once for all but is gradually revealed” was accepted (the subsequent overturning of this decision in fact proves the thesis’s very correctness)! The issue of the origin of Satan was similarly not declared to be heretical; in fact, it was concluded that there was room for further discussion! As for the question concerning the Holy Spirit... the IA has not even had the courage to ask for the topic to be researched by the TRC!
Jesus also reminds us that we are judged according to our conduct: “You will know them by their fruits... Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” (Matt 7:16, 20)
Consider carefully the work of Pr. YM Yang, including the things he has done after his termination. Are the fruits of a man who continues to preach the gospel and work diligently even after being terminated good or bad?
Those who consider Pr. Yang to be a heretic, please note: I cannot change your views, but if, at the judgment seat, Jesus says, “YM Yang is my good and faithful servant”, how would you answer Jesus?
Things must be judged in accordance with the evidence available, not according to human feelings and relationships! The IA’s termination of Pr. Yang was neither just nor righteous, and the reasons given afterwards were unsupported by relevant evidence --- the case is completely unconvincing! Man is limited and cannot know everything, but to do justly, to love mercy --- these are most certainly things which God wants us to do!

“But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” (Acts 5:29)

“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” (1 Jn 3:10)

“And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.” (Rev 19:8)