林林駁楊&實石駁楊

C.

林慕實反駁楊天民
Lin Mushi rebuts Paul Hattaway

林伯引用聖經，還提出林慕實寫的三個反思來反駁。
Elder Lin quoted Scripture and gave three strong reflections, written by Lin Mushi.

這真的是又有力又帶點幽默！
 It was powerful and even a bit humorous!

其實我們還可以加上林慕實的第四和第五個反思：
 We can even add a fourth and fifth reflection of Lin Mushi:

就是按照海特威這種奇怪邏輯，
 According to Hattaway’s odd logic,

他等於是鼓勵大家把《路加福音》、《使徒行傳》和《保羅書信》都丟掉，
 he is implying we should throw away Luke, Acts, and Paul’s letters,

然後用《瑪利亞福音》、《猶大福音》、《多馬福音》、《腓力福音》和《彼得福音》來取代。
 and replace them with the gospels of Mary, Judas, Thomas, Philip, and Peter.

理由是那些人真的跟過耶穌，
 Because those writers had physically followed Jesus,

而路加和保羅卻沒有親自跟耶穌相處過一分鐘！
 while Luke and Paul never spent one minute with Him!

D.

還有第五個反思就更精彩了！
 Here comes the fifth reflection!

耶穌提到有從前有一棟西羅亞樓倒塌，
 Jesus spoke of the Siloam tower,

壓死了十八個人。
 that fell and killed eighteen people.

耶穌其實不認識那些人，
 Jesus didn’t even know them,

卻直接說不要拿罪大小來比較。
 yet He said: don’t compare sin’s weight.

他們是因為沒有悔改才滅亡的！
 They perished because they didn’t repent!

接著耶穌提醒門徒：
 Then Jesus told His disciples:

「你們若不悔改，也要如此滅亡。」
 “If you don’t repent, you’ll perish too.”

照海特威的邏輯，耶穌自己也錯了。
 By Hattaway’s logic, Jesus Himself erred.

祂對不認識的十八死者的評論，
 His comments on the eighteen victims

就完全沒有意義。
 would be meaningless.

耶穌沒見過希律，卻稱他是狐狸。
 Jesus never met Herod, yet called him a fox.

耶穌也不可能去過每個會堂，
 Jesus couldn’t visit every synagogue,

認識所有法利賽教會的拉比，
 nor know all Pharisee rabbis,

祂卻講出非常嚴厲的話，
 yet He spoke very harsh words,

被後代基督徒引用來一概化否定法利賽教會。
later christians used to denounce all Pharisee churches.

照海特威的邏輯，耶穌這些話都該刪掉！
 By Hattaway’s logic, these words of Jesus must go!

可悲的是，很多很多讀者被他的遁詞公開信誤導，
 Sadly, many many readers were misled by his Open Excuse Letter,

結果跟著他盲目扔石頭，
 so they blindly threw stones,

去責難中國家庭教會的元老級長輩，
 accusing the elder leaders of Chinese house churches,

像袁伯伯、林伯伯等受人尊敬的弟兄。
 like Elder Yuan, Elder Lin, respected brothers.

E.

除了林伯伯針對海特威的第一個詭辯邏輯提出拆解迷招之外，在德國的林慕實也針對海特威的第二個詭辯，就是誤用馬太的經文來反駁，指出他的錯誤來。林弟兄寫說：
 Beyond Uncle Lin’s rebuttal of Hattaway’s first fallacy, Lin Mushi in Germany also answered Hattaway’s second ploy—misusing Matthew—and exposed the error. Brother Lin wrote:

誤用經文
 Misusing Scripture

他們巧妙地誤用馬太十八章15-17節的一段經文，來對袁伯伯加以責難(對袁伯母，林獻羔伯伯、謝模善伯伯也是一樣)。
 They cleverly misused Matthew 18:15–17 to accuse Elder Yuan (and likewise Sister Yuan, Uncle Lin Xian-Gao, and uncle Xie).

“倘若你的弟兄得罪你，你就去，……若是不聽教會，就看他象外邦人和稅吏一樣。”
 “‘If your brother sins against you, go… If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him as a Gentile and a tax collector.’”

海特威責難說，因爲在中國的領袖們沒有先去德國找天上人，所以是違背聖經的，因此他們全部錯了。
 Hattaway charged that because China’s leaders didn’t first go to Germany to confront “the Heavenly Man,” they violated Scripture—and therefore were entirely wrong.

讀者聽起來好像很對啊！其實他們全部又受誤導了！
 That sounds convincing at first! In reality, it misleads the readers again!

因爲這段經文根本不合用在天上人的場合裡。
 Because that passage simply does not apply to this situation.

如果要運用這段經文，大前提是，天上人得罪了袁伯伯,(對其他人亦同理)。
 For Matthew 18 to apply, the premise must be that “the Heavenly Man” sinned against Uncle Yuan (and similarly against the others).

但是這個大前提不成立﹗
 But that premise doesn’t hold!

因爲天上人的所作所為，並不直接“得罪”袁伯伯，或林伯謝伯等任何個人，而是“得罪”了整體的中國家庭教會，“得罪”了神自己！
 What he did did not directly offend uncle Yuan or uncle Lin and Xie as individuals; it offended the whole Chinese house-church and, ultimately, God Himself!

前者是因他冒充，利用中國家庭教會名義，和以假見證混合的信息，欺騙了海外無數愛護中國家庭教會的人，後者是因他妄稱神的名。
 First, by impersonation—using the house-church’s name and mixing in false testimonies—he deceived countless overseas supporters; second, he took God’s name in vain.

天上人的支持者們利用此段經文來作擋箭牌，並誤導人責難袁伯等近百位簽署公開信的同工是違背經訓而行。
 His supporters used this text as a shield, misleading people to blame Uncle Yuan and nearly a hundred co-signers as if they violated Scripture.

它們得意地濫用神的話撐腰，意圖以重重障礙為難對方，肚子裡明知不可能。
 They triumphantly misused God’s Word as cover—piling up hurdles for others—while knowing it doesn’t truly fit.

我們先且撇開這個錯誤的大前提不談，讓我們切身處地去稍微深思一下，看個清楚：
 Set that faulty premise aside; let’s put ourselves in the situation and think it through clearly.

——————————————————————————————

F.

第一點
 Point One

主觀上，袁伯伯是不願意出國的。
 From a personal standpoint, Uncle Yuan was unwilling to travel abroad.

就連早年身體健康時，他也是拒絕邀請。
 Even in good health, he declined invitations.

他寧願忠於職守，照顧群羊。
 He preferred to stay faithful to his duty and tend the flock.

若是他出國了，回來時有可能不被允許入境。
 If he had gone overseas, he might not have been allowed back into China.

---

第二點
 Point Two

客觀上，他們年老體弱，行動不便。
 Objectively, they are elderly, frail, and with limited mobility.

---

第三點
 Point Three

到歐洲需要隨身護理。
 Traveling to Europe requires hands-on care.

若要到德國找天上人，還需要德語翻譯。
 If you went to Germany to see the Heavenly Man, you’d also need a German interpreter.

---

第四點
 Point Four

費用何來及是否值得都要考慮。
 You must consider the cost and whether it’s worth it.

---

第五點
 Point Five

隨時可能發生意外，誰能負責？
 Accidents can happen at any time—who takes responsibility?

若在飛機上中風了怎麼辦？
 What if he has a stroke on a long flight?

那時天上人方面就更有話可說了。
 Yun’s camp could then spin that situation to their advantage.

---

第六點
 Point Six

若真的去了，必然面對支持者和媒體。
 If they actually went, they would face supporters and media.

正好被利用來宣傳募款。
 Exactly what would be used for publicity and fundraising.

---

第七點
 Point Seven

天上人必然詭辯，不肯認錯。
 The Heavenly Man would likely respond with sophistry and refuse to repent.

那是否還得再派同工飛去一次呢？
 Would that force us to send co-workers to Europe again?

誰來付費和擔負責任呢？
 Who will pay and assume responsibility?

這些顧慮也適用於其他神的老僕人。
 These concerns also apply to God’s other elderly servants.

---

第八點
 Point Eight

按照經文，若天上人不悔改，就要告訴“教會”。
 According to Scripture, if the Heavenly Man won’t repent, tell the “church.”

但問題是：哪裡才有這個“教會”？
 But the problem is: where is that “church”?

誰是天上人的牧師呢？
 Who is the Heavenly Man’s pastor?

---

他號稱自己是大使徒、幾千萬信徒的代表。
 He claims to be a great apostle, the representative of tens of millions.

也是受苦的英雄和領導人物。
 Also a suffering hero and leading figure.

---

現在誰是他的屬靈導師呢？
 So who is his spiritual covering?

徐永澤只是同工和秘書。
 Xu Yongze is only his co-worker and secretary.

其他支持者各有問題，只是共犯。
 Other supporters are flawed, banded together as accomplices.

他們能等同“教會”嗎？
 Can they be equated with the “church”?

這樣合乎聖經嗎？
 Is that biblical?

---

G.

這牽涉到現代教會尷尬的問題。
 This raises an awkward problem in today’s church.

當牧師犯錯不認時，可以找屬靈遮蓋。
 When a pastor sins and won’t confess, you appeal to his covering.

但若遮蓋也掩錯亂蓋呢？
 But what if that covering also hides the sin?

若遮蓋誤用名聲亂扯呢？
 What if it abuses reputation to cover it up?

那還有多少更高的遮蓋呢？
 How many higher coverings are there above that?

那些責備別人不够遮蓋的，
 Those who scold others for lacking covering,

本身就最需要被糾正。
 Are often the ones most in need of correction.

林慕實的文章還有更多精彩的論點，
Lin Mushi’s article contains even more powerful arguments,

在打假網 jesusreturn.net 裏面大家可以讀到。
 You can read them on the fact-checking site jesusreturn.net.

他也誠實指出，海特威爲了説服讀者，
 He also honestly pointed out that Hattaway, in order to convince readers,

說曾經寫過信打過電話給他都沒有回音，
 claimed he had written letters and called him without response,

是不合事實的假見證。
 which was in fact a false testimony.