Lunes, Abril 30, 2012

"Iglesia ni Cristo is a 'Cult or Cult of Christianity"

"Iglesia ni Cristo is a 'Cult or Cult of Christianity"

___________________________________

 

 

 

 

Misconception:
Many people particularly Iglesia ni Cristo detractors call the "Iglesia ni Cristo a "cult" or use the term "Cult of Christianity" in describing the Iglesia ni Cristo. The unfair use of this derogatory word "Cult" to describe the Church sends a negative message to other people, particularly those who have not yet known the church---the Iglesia ni Cristo. Due to this misinformation people will in effect have a negative perception of the Church, even before studying or making a serious inquiry about it. This webpage is presented to make clear that this derogatory allegation is unfair and unfounded so people will be encouraged to study, examine, and compare the Iglesia ni Cristo.

To clarify the word "Cult", please read the following excerpt from various information sources:

The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange.[1] . . . . . .  It is also a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society. . . . . . . In the mass media, and among average citizens, "cult" gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass suicide. While most of these negative qualities usually have real documented precedents in the activities of a very small minority of new religious groups, mass culture often extends them to any religious group viewed as culturally deviant, however peaceful or law abiding it may be.
Source: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/cult, as of 10/20/2011

The high profile crimes perpetuated by the the so-called cults are exemplified by the following:    

 The mass suicides committed by members of the People's Temple and their leader Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana, when on 18 November 1978, more than 900 people died in the largest mass murder/suicide in American history.  The other case is of the Branch Davidians who are best known for the 1993 siege of their Center near Waco, Texas, by the ATF and the FBI, which resulted in the deaths of eighty-two of the church’s members, including head figure David Koresh. The publicity of these crimes, as amplified by the Anti-cult movement, influenced the popular perception of new religious movements.
Source:  http://listverse.com/2007/09/15/top-10-cults/ as of 10/20/2011
 
The term 'cult of Christianity' is used of a group, church or organization whose central teachings and/or practices are claimed to be biblical or representative of biblical Christianity, but which are in fact unbiblical and un-Christian. . . . .A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible. Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
Source: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c45.html as of 10/21/2011
From the above information, the word "cult and cult of Christianity" was made clear. Please take note of the following important points:
  • The word cult pejoratively or negatively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange.
  • Anti-cult movement uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control.
  • In the mass media, and among average citizens, the word "cult" gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass suicide.
  • The term 'cult of Christianity' is used of a group, church or organization whose central teachings and/or practices are claimed to be biblical or representative of biblical Christianity, but which are in fact unbiblical and un-Christian. . . . . . is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.
    • Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
Thus, when Iglesia ni Cristo detractors call the Iglesia ni Cristo a "cult" or a "Cult of Christianity", they are in effect declaring to the media and other people that:
  1. The church beliefs are considered strange
  2. The church is seen as authoritarian, exploitative and uses mind control
  3. The church is viewed as negatively by becoming associated with things like mass suicide, brainwashing and other criminal activity.
  4. The church teachings and practices are unbiblical and un-Christian, because the church embraces particular doctrines that denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the so-called "central doctrines of the Christian faith"  which include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith.
  
The Truth:
The Iglesia ni Cristo is a legitimate Christian religion and is not in anyway a "cult" or a "cult of Christianity" as alleged by detractors.  Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for Church of Christ) also known as INC, is the largest entirely indigenous Christian religious organization that originated from the Philippines and the largest independent church in Asia.
By 2008, the Iglesia ni Cristo, had grown to more than 5,000 congregations in the Philippines, and more than 600 abroad. The Iglesia ni Cristo has local congregations in 89 countries and territories with its members belonging to 102 nationalities and ethnic groups.
 
First: The Church's  beliefs and practices can not be considered as "strange" because all the Iglesia ni Cristo doctrines and beliefs are biblical and are fully and clearly supported by the verses of the Holy Bible. . . . . . .  What should be considered as "strange" are doctrines and beliefs that are unscriptural or not fully supported by the verses of the Bible, such as some of the popular doctrines that originated from traditions of men and beliefs that are considered mysteries because it can never be explained using the verses of the Bible.
The following are some comments of people who have studied and/or written about the doctrine of the Trinity:
  • The Trinity is a wonderful mystery. No one understands it. The most learned theologian, the holiest Pope, the greatest saint, all are mystified by it as a child of seven.
    [Martin J. Scott, S.J., God and Myself, Nhil Obstat: Arthurus J. Scanlan, S.T.D., Imprimatur: Joannes Cardinalis Farley (P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1917), pp. 118-119.]
  • Trinitarians say that "the doctrine of the Trinity is [...] a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind."[7]
    Source: Wikipedia, Nontrinitarianism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism (as of June 17, 2010, 15:11 GMT).
  • The doctrine of the Trinity — that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God — is admittedly difficult to comprehend, and yet is the very foundation of Christian truth. Although skeptics may ridicule it as a mathematical impossibility, it is nevertheless a basic doctrine of Scripture as well as profoundly realistic in both universal experience and in the scientific understanding of the cosmos.
    Authors: Henry Morris and Martin Clark (excerpted from The Bible Has the Answer by Morris and Clark, published by Master Books, 1987).
  • "The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But he who would deny the Trinity would lose his soul"
    (Harold Lindsey and Charles J. Woodbridge, A handbook of Christian truth, pp 51-52).
Why is the doctrine of the Trinity a mystery?  The following Jesuit priest has these to say:
God, of course, can not perform an absurdity, a contradiction in terms. He cannot for instance, make two and two equal five.
[John Walsh, This is Catholicism (New York: Image Books, 1959) p. 25.]
"the dogma of the Blessed Trinity is a mystery in the fullest sense" . . . . "it cannot be proved by reason, . . . nay, it cannot be even be proved to be possible"
[Rev. C.F. Blount, S.J., The Blessed Trinity (London: Catholic Truth Society), p.2.]



Here is what Iglesia ni Cristo converts say about their experience in the church:

For exactly 20 years, I listened to the words of God under different ministers who were always ready to answer my questions about the tiresome praises of priests on the mysteries of the Catholic faith. In 1990 Brother Rizalino Santos, the resident minister at that time, started to teach me the fundamental biblical doctrines of the Church of Christ. Any question I asked him he answered by reading verses in the Bible, never in his own words and neither did he pronounce the prophetic sentence of the Catholic priests that it is a "mystery of the faith"!  One of the doctrines that touched me deeply is the truth regarding God and Jesus Christ who, according to some religions are one, but in the Bible, they are two and are entirely different. Also, I was amazed at how all members in the Church of Christ from the youngest to the oldest—receive the same teaching from the Bible. What determined my choice to become a member of the Church of Christ was when I asked Brother Santos to show me where in the Bible we can read that Jesus Christ is not God. He took by hand the Bible and read to me different verses, among which are: John 17:3, John 20:17, and I Timothy 2:5. These verses left me surprised, especially John 20:17 wherein Jesus Christ makes clear that He is not God. In the light of this truth, I asked where the Catholic Church draws the origin of the teaching regarding the so-called Trinity. He read two passages from the book "Discourses on the Apostles Creed" written by a Catholic priest in which it says that in the Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D., the Catholic Church defined that it was an article of faith that Jesus Christ is God; and in the Council of Constantinople, in 381 A.D., that the Holy Spirit is God. There are no biblical basis of the teaching of the so-called Trinity. This fact made me deeply upset, so much that I asked a priest whom I recognized then for an explanation. But rather than answering me in a calm manner, he was outraged and sent me away.
Marco Boni, Rome, Italy Click here to read full story 
 
So, why did I leave my former church and join the Iglesia ni Cristo? First, I was spiritually convinced that the Iglesia ni Cristo is the only true Church. It does not hide the truth. It does not add to or subtract teachings from the Bible. It is not a Church wherein the doctrines and practices are a mixture of beliefs where anything can go in. The Iglesia ni Cristo is unique, the only Church I have seen in my life that is biblical. . . . . The Iglesia ni Cristo does not worship idols or graven images. There is nothing like human tradition imposed in worship. . . . . One major component of my conversion to the Iglesia ni Cristo is its clear and precise doctrines regarding the true nature of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Unlike other churches that have confusing doctrines such as the Trinity. . . . . 
Innocent E. Okekeh, Onitsha, Anambra State, Nigeria Click here to read full story

Second:  The negative perception that the Church administration is authoritarian, exploitative and uses mind control is not true. The Church administration is strict but fair because all its rules are based in the teachings of the Bible and every rule is clearly explained to the members using the verses of the Holy Bible. The unfair allegation that the Church administration uses mind control or brain washing on its members is entirely wrong. The Church members on their own free will, follow the teachings or doctrines of the Church because he/she clearly understood the teachings which was clearly and patiently explained to them using the verses of the Bible.
Here is what an Iglesia ni Cristo convert say about his experience in the church.

While I was attending worship services, I had so many questions in my mind. I was amazed of how the ministers preached. I noticed that they did not produce their own Bible They used various Bible translations. All the questions I asked were finally answered. I'd been with different religions, but I said to myself that this one was so different and the teachings. were so clear, direct from the Bible. I thought it was kind of strange since the minister just gave me the answer with- out telling me a story or interpreting from his own. He could prove to me that this is really the Lord God's one and only true Church. I finally decide to enlist as a Bible student. The minister who taught me God's words was Brother Praxidio Ramboyong Jr. He would always ask me at the end of the lesson if I understood it and he would make me answer questions to make sure that I really did. I clearly understood because of the fact that they came from the Bible. . . . . .
Louis John Vecchitto,  Norwich, Connecticut, U.S.A.Click here to read full story  

What sets the Iglesia ni Cristo apart from other religions is that the members willingly follow the church's doctrines or teachings because they are fully convinced and biblically sure that they are following God's teachings, which are un-like like some mysterious doctrines and beliefs that are based on the traditions and commandments of men. 

Third:  It is very clear that the purpose of church detractors in calling the church a "cult" is to  demean or degrade the Church.  It is entirely unfair for the Church's detractors to call the church a "cult" knowing fully well that it will have a negative connotation in the mass media and among the the average citizens because it will be associated with the high profile crimes previously committed by a handful of so-called cults. 

Fourth:  It is entirely wrong and unfair for the Iglesia ni Cristo detractors to declare that the church teachings and and practices are "unbiblical and un-Christian" just because the Iglesia ni Cristo does not follow and/or deny their so-called "central doctrines of the Christian faith" which include such doctrines as the Trinity and the deity of Christ.        Why? . . . . . Because they must first prove that their doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ is biblical and clearly supported by the verses of the Holy Bible and not explain the Trinity as a mystery. Thus, if they say that the iglesia ni Cristo church's beliefs is unbiblical or biblically wrong, then, they must first prove that their doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus is biblically correct.

It is therefore essential that you make a Bible study by comparing the popular doctrine of the Trinity and the Iglesia ni Cristo doctrines about God and Jesus Christ in order to know whose doctrines or teachings is unbiblical and un-Christian.
You owe it to yourself to find the truth.
"You are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul".
It is vital to find the true Church because your soul cannot be saved by a false religion.
 

How to make a comparative Bible study so you will come to know
whose doctrines or teachings is unbiblical and un-Christian?

Doctrines of the Iglesia ni Cristo Trinitarian Doctrines

The only true God is the Father
 
The only true God is the Triune God
Jesus Christ is not God but a very special Man Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man
 Verify the scriptural basis of the doctrines.  Check the verses in your own  Bible or the online Bibles in the internet. Determine if the verses presented clearly and conclusively support their doctrines?
After a thorough comparative Bible Study, make your decision.
Decide whose doctrines are unbiblical and un-Christian?
Always remember:
 "You are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul".



Iglesia ni Cristo wants you to know the truth written in the Bible.
Iglesia ni Cristo does not hide the truth because her teachings are not hidden in mystery.

  • Iglesia ni Cristo doctrines and beliefs are clearly written in the Bible.  All questions are answered using the verses of the Bible. The teachings are so clear, you will never hear the word "mystery" as an answer to any of your questions.
  • Iglesia ni Cristo does not add or subtract teaching from the Bible. All teachings are strictly biblical as it does not include teachings from traditions and commandments of men.
You are welcome to study, examine the doctrines and beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo and compare them to your religious beliefs or other religion's belief.
Then, based on your thorough biblical study,
you can fairly decide who is the real "cult of Christianity"--- the pseudo Christian religion whose beliefs are unbiblical and un-Christian because their doctrines are not in accordance with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ that are recorded in the Holy Bible by His Apostles and disciples.

_____________________


To give you an idea why the Iglesia ni Cristo believe that it is the
doctrine of the Trinity that is unbiblical and un-Christian.
please read the following:

. . the doctrine of the Trinity lacks direct scriptural support as declared by the following encyclopedias and Bible dictionary: 
  • The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]", "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century".
  • Encyclopedia Encarta states: "The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father. [...] The term trinitas was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of the debates on the nature of Christ [...]. In the 4th century, the doctrine was finally formulated"[9].
  • Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). [...] The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. [...] by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."[10]
  • The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: "One does not find in the NT the Trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity."

From the above Encyclopedia's and Bible Dictionary, it is very clear that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught explicitly in the Old and New Testament of the Holy Bible.

This is the basic reason why Nontrinitarians reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it lacks direct scriptural support or simply the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. 
Thus, the argument that the Trinitarian doctrine is a “mystery” is essentially an inherent irrationality. The perplexity of the Trinitarian arguments, which has included the use of philosophy, is contrary to the Biblical principles of simplicity and clarity in doctrine. Their failure to explain the doctrine using the verses of the Bible does not make the Trinity a mystery, for how can anyone explain a supposedly biblical doctrine that is simply not taught in the Bible.
More commentaries about the Trinity Doctrine from various sources.

  • The Dictionary of the Bible - Edited by James Hastings (1963), PAGE 1015:
    • The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proofs.
  • Dictionary of the Bible by John L McKenzie S.J. (1965), PAGE 899.
    • The Trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of persons and nature which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible.
    • The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and other such as essence and substance were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.
  • The Encyclopedia Americana - 1956, VOL. XXVII, PAGE 294L:
    • "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was (and still is) strictly Unitarian (Oneness - believing that God is only one).
    • The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early (Originally Apostolic) Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary, and deviation from this teaching."
  • The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 15, 1987:
    • Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity,
    • Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.
    • Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary (based on or subject to individual judgment or preference). While it is incontestable (obviously true) that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural evidence alone."


Are you still wondering why the doctrine of the Trinity became so popular today even if it is not taught in the Bible?

THUS, It took about 300 years (after the death of the last apostle) for the Roman Church to give official endorsement to the concept of the Trinity. When the Church through the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD gave its decision regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit, it also gave official endorsement to the concept of the Trinity. Thus, by the end of the 4th century, the Emperor Theodosius "issued a decree that the doctrine of the Trinity was to be the official state religion of the Roman Empire and that all subjects shall adhere to it".
Source: http://comparativebiblestudylessons.com/Lessons/2f-origin-formulation-trinity.html 
All nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity (see Apostolic Age) was not Trinitarian. Typically, nontrinitarians believe Christianity was altered as a direct and indirect consequence of the edicts of Emperor Constantine I, which resulted in the eventual adoption of Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Because it was during a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically consider the doctrine questionable. Nontrinitarians see the Nicene Creed as an essentially political document, resulting from the subordination of true doctrine to state interests by leaders of the Catholic Church, so that the church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.
Source:  Wikipedia, Nontrinitarianism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism  (as of Apr. 9, 2010, 18:49 GMT).
For more than 1600 years people have been taught that the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical and many people have unwittingly accepted it as the biblical truth. . . . But, with the advent of the internet, it is now very easy to examine the events that transpired a long time ago, starting from the death of the Apostles by the end of the 1st century, when the books and letters of the New Testament were already written, . . . .to the time before the end of the 4th century, when Emperor Theodosius "issued a decree that the doctrine of the Trinity was to be the official state religion of the Roman Empire and that all subjects shall adhere to it".

Now is the time to find out who are the real "cult or cult of Christianity"--- the pseudo Christian religions whose beliefs are unbiblical and un-Christian because their doctrines are not in accordance with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ that are recorded in the Holy Bible by His Apostles and disciples.

_______________

Please follow the link to continue your studies:
Compare Supporting Verses
of the "Iglesia ni Cristo" and "Trinitarian
"  

Beliefs in God and Jesus Christ
so people may come to see the proof texts and know who is teaching
unbiblical and un-Christian doctrines.

___________________
*Misconception - n, A false or mistaken view, opinion, or attitude. Collins English Dictionary


_______________________________________________________

Links:

GEM TV
________________________________________

Why Far East is correct in Isaiah 43:5, Moffatt Translation

Why Far East is correct in
Isaiah 43:5, Moffatt Translation

 

Letter to the Editor:
GOD'S MESSAGE, November 2009, p.3

 IT HAS BEEN MY HOBBY to read various religious magazines. I love comparing religious magazines. I love comparing  the beliefs of different religious organizations and I'm fond of knowing at least the basis of their beliefs.
Through your magazine God's Message,  I learned that one of the bases of what you claim as your "election" as God's children is the prophecy written  in Isaiah 43:5-6 which mentions about God's sons and daughters from the east I noticed however  that  to  make  it  appear  that  it specifically refers to the members of the Church of Christ, your religion which originated from the Philippines, a country in the  Far East you often use Moffatt's Translation of the Bible which categorically puts "Far East" in the verse instead of just "east". But what are Moffart's credentials  that made you subscribe to his rendition of that verse? Why do you believe that "far east" is correct in Isaiah 43:5?

RicardoTan
Phuket, Thailand


Editor's reply:
Concerning Mr. James Moffatt and his translation of the Bible, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed. by   Metzger and Coogan 1993), which has more than 250 contributors,     representing "international community of scholars, coming from some twenty centuries, on five continents has this to say:
“The translation that made the greatest impact upon the Bible-reading public, though,  was  that of the  Scottish  scholar James Moffatt … his translation  of the Old Testament appeared in 1924 and the whole Bible was revised in 1935. He spent the last years of his life as professor of Church History at Union Theological Seminary, New York….” (p.761)
However, this is not the reason we quote Moffatt’s rendition of Isaiah 43:5 in which he used the term “far east” instead of just plain “east” as other versions have it. By examining the said verse, we will notice that the prophet explicitly says  “east”  in verse 5, and mentions “from afar” in verse 6. Now since the ones being prophesied in verse 5  as  coming from the “east” are the very ones being referred to in verse 6 as “from afar”, it is clear then that they are “from afar” in the “east” or Far East.
That Moffatt’s rendition of the verse is correct is further substantiated by  the fact that in original  Hebrew, the word  which he translated as “far east” is mizrach” (Isa. 4-3:5, Hebrew-English Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society). Concerning the Hebrew term “mizrach,” the Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith has this to say:
“East. The Hebrew term kedem proper means that which is before or in front of a person,  and was applied to the east from the custom of turning in that direction when describing the points of the compass, before, behind, the right and the left representing respectively east, west, south and north, Job 23:8, 9, The term as generally used refers to the lands lying immediately eastward of Palestine, viz. Arabia, Mesopotamia and BabyIonia. On the other hand mizrach is used of the far east with a less definite signification, Isa. 43:5; 46:11.” (p. 154) 
Here is a testimony of a renowned Bible scholar that mizrach” was the Hebrew term used in Isaiah 43:5, and that this term is the equivalent in English of “far east.”
Moreover, in a related prophecy, the country “afar” in the “east” from where God’s people in these last days would come from is composed of “islands of the sea” (Isa. 24: 15, King James Version). The Philippines, the country from which the Church of Christ reemerged in these last days, is made up of more than 7,100 islands and is situated almost at the geographical center of the Far East (Asia and the Philippines, p. 169). These are just some of the reasons why we do firmly believe that the place in the prophecy (Isaiah 43:5-6) referred to as “mizrach” or “far east” has the Philippine as its fulfillment.  
_______________________________________________________


Links:

GEM TV
________________________________________

A man giving Salvation


A man giving Salvation



Letter to the Editor:  
GOD'S MESSAGE, December 2009, p.3
CORRECT ME IF I'M MISTAKEN, but the Bible directly teaches that God the Father is Savior and so is Jesus Christ. This is one of the  proofs  that Jesus  is  indeed God—something which the Church of Christ adamantly refuses to believe. If the Savior Jesus Christ were not God, then why do we need Him if we already have the Father for salvation? And if He were just a man as you believe obstinately, so how can a man give salvation?

Name withheld


Editor's reply:
It is true that God the Father is Savior (Isa. 45:21 -22) and that Jesus Christ is also Savior (John 4:42; Eph. 5:23). However, to assume that Christ is also God because He is Savior is to ignore the teachings of the Holy  Scriptures on how He became Savior:
"It was Jesus, a descendant David, whom God made the Savior of the people of Israel, as he had promised." (Acts 13:.23, Today's English Version)
"Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance   to   Israel    and   forgiveness of sins."   (Acts 5:31,    New   King  James Version)
Clearly, therefore,  Christ  is  Savior because He was exalted and made as such  by God.  Now,   if  Christ's being made  Savior made  Him  God,  then comes the absurd conclusion that Christ became God because He was made as such by another God.
The  Holy Scriptures  also   teaches that  Christ   Himself   needed    salvation from   God    (Heb.    5:7,   Ibid.)   Could  this have meant that one  God "offered  up prayers  and   supplications" to  another God "who was able to save Him from death"?    Surely  not, as  this contradicts the doctrine of the Bible that there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things" (I Cor. 8:6, ibid.)
To  further ask,   "Why  do we need  Jesus if we  already have the Father for salvation?" and "How  can a man (Jesus) give salvation" is to overlook, to say the least,  the biblical  pronouncements on the manner through which the Father will grant salvation? The Father, who alone is God  (John  17:3), will   give salvation  through   "the  man"   He has  ordained, Jesus Christ. The Bible explains: 
"And now—all glory to him  who alone is God, who saves us through Jesus Christ  our Lord ... "   (Jude 1:24, Living Bible)
"Because He [God]  has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31, NKJV)
As Jesus was ordained or appointed to be "the man" through whom God will judge the world, it is Him (Christ) who will come on the "end of the age" (Matt, 24:3, NKJV) to bring judgment  on  all (Jude  1:14-15, TEV). Jesus will grant salvation or  the  right  to "inherit  the kingdom" to His sheep (Matt. 25:31 -34} or the members of His Church (John 10:16; Acts  20:28, Lamsa Translation; Eph. 5:23)   because God gave Him the authority to give eternal life (John 17:2). Indeed, Christ became Savior by virtue of the authority  given  to Him by the Father.
"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3, NKJV)
It was Enoch, the sixth direct descendant from Adam, who long ago prophesied this about them: 

"The Lord will come with many thousands of his holy angels to bring judgment on all, to condemn them all for the godless deeds they have performed and for all the terrible words that godless sinners have spoken against him!" (Jude 1:14-15, TEV)
“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:" (Matthew 25:31-34, NKJV)
And as regards the nature of Christ's being,  the Bible explicitly   declares  of Him through whom salvation  is to be found:
"Listen to these words, fellow Israelites! Jesus of Nazareth was a man whose divine authority was clearly proven to you by all the miracles and wonders which God performed through him. You yourselves know this, for it happened here among you. (Acts 2:22, TEV)
"Salvation is to be found through him alone; in all the world there is no one else whom God has given who can save us." (Acts 4:12, TEV)

___________________

"Why use different Bible versions?"


"Why use different Bible versions?"




Letter to the Editor:  
GOD'S MESSAGE, June 2004, p.3
I HAVE READ several issues of your magazine. I greatly admire the way you tackle doctrinal issues by quoting directly from the scriptures. However, I find it disturbing that you use many Bible versions, and not stick to just one. Are you being subjective and arbitrary by choosing the version that suits your beliefs? Why the need to use different versions?

Kim Valdez 
Oahu, Hawaii, U.S.A.


Editor's reply:
Using only one Bible version in both written and oral discourse seems practical and expedient. This would not pose any problem if and when those who translated various languages are completely free of bias or theologically neutral. Unfortunately, they are not. And this has resulted not only in differences in shades of meaning in some portions of the verse, but also  in differences in interpretation of the entire passage: 
"All translations involves interpretation. Interpretation, of course, involves the influence of theology; and as all translation involves interpretation, so all translation involves theology. ......... Translators cannot avoid totally the necessity of making interpretive decisions, nor can they avoid completely the influence of personal views of truth on their work. Translation in not hermeneutically neutral and translators are not theologically neutral." (Accuracy of Translation, p.41)
For these reasons there are times when it is necessary to choose the version that is not only easier to comprehend, but most of all renders the precise meaning---thus, the need to use more than one version of the Bible.
How do we determine which particular version of the Bible to use? Apostle Paul taught the guiding principle when it comes to the teachings written in the Holy Scriptures:
"But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God."
"These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Cor. 2:10,13, New King James Version)
Spiritual truth must be compared with spiritual truths, and in doing so, there must be no contradiction. Hence, if a term or phrase in particular version contradicts the true doctrine, then there is an error in the translation. Therefore it behooves us to use a version that does not contradict the biblical truth.
However, an important thing must be understood when it come to comparing spiritual truths with spiritual truths. A preacher of the gospel must be sent or duly commissioned by God for him to receive the Holy Spirit and be able to correctly compare spiritual truths and spiritual things. Hence, not everyone can rightfully explain the contents of the Bible. Apostle Paul said,
"And how shall they preach unless they are sent? ....." (Rom. 10:15, ibid)
John the Baptist also taught the importance of being sent by God:
"The one whom God has sent speaks God's words, because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit." (Jn. 3:34, Today's English Version)
God gave the knowledge of His words only to His messengers. They are the ones entrusted with the ministry and the message of reconciliation (II Cor. 5:18-20), and thus they are the ones who can rightfully teach the contents of the Holy Scriptures. People should listen to their preaching to be able to know and understand the will of God expressed in His Holy book. 

Salvation made cheap


Salvation made cheap




Letter to the Editor:  
GOD'S MESSAGE, March 2009, p.4
YOUR MAGAZINE IS part of my readings and through it I found out that unlike most of the Christian sects, the Iglesia ni Cristo doesn't believe that Christ is God. This didn't surprise me that much for you have a very good point in arguing that if the Son is God too, together with the Father, then there would be more than  one God,   and   that   would obviously contradict   the   monotheism   endorsed   by Christ Himself.
However, I am wondering,  if Jesus Christ were just a man and not God, then wouldn't that render His death for mankind's salvation  as a cheap sacrifice?  For if Christ were purely human, kept free from sin by God, and then sent to His death on the cross, then that would have not cost God much, for He could have created a million such men.

Peter John Ambrocio 
Valenzuela City, Philippines 


Editor's reply:
We are pleased to know than  our magazine is part of your readings.
The underlying, argument in your question  appears to suggest that the only way mankind's salvation could be considered a great sacrifice or a manifestation of God's great love for mankind is if and only if it were no less than God Himself who had died on the cross—that if He who suffered the pains of that harsh death were just "purely human" and not God, then salvation would not be priceless but a "cheap" one.
Highly subjective as it is, this contention fall short of biblical substantiation. In fact, to suggest that God's plan of salvation is 'cheap' if He who died on the cross were not God is not only to question God's goodness but also to utterly contradict what the Holy Scriptures teaches regarding salvation.
God, according to the Bible, is immortal (I Tim. 1:17)- Therefore, for Him to die whatever reason or purpose is a direct violation of biblical teachings. And to suggest that  God   underwent  "incarnation"  or willfully became a mortal man to be able to die for us is to further promote an idea which is grossly opposed to the will of God who clearly declared, "I am God, and not man" (Hos. 11:9, New King James Version)  and "I  am the LORD, and I do not change" (Mal. 3.6, Today's English Version)
"I will not execute the fierceness of My anger; I will not destroy Ephraim. For I am God and not man. The Holy One in your midst; And I will not come with terror." (Hosea 11:9, New King James Version)
"I am the LORD, and I do not change. And so you, the descendants of Jacob, are not yet completely lost."  (Malachi 3:6, Today's English Version)
Concerning the greatest manifestation of God's love for mankind, this is the teaching of the Bible:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16, NKJV)
So that people would have the opportunity to attain everlasting life, the Bible says. "He [God] gave His only begotten Son."  Notice that it doesn't say, '"God gave Himself. Clearly, therefore, the one that was given as sacrifice for man's redemption is not God Himself but His Son Jesus Christ.
Concerning the nature of the Son Jesus Christ, He Himself said, "But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth." (John 8:40, Ibid)  And to stress the fact that He is distinct from God, Christ further stated, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18, Revised Standard Version)
The fact that Christ is man and not God does not mean, however, that Jesus Christ is just an "ordinary man" like us. Christ is far greater than all of us—He is the only  man who was exalted to be, among others, Prince and  Savior (Acts  5:31),   made Lord   (Acts  2:36), Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him (Matt. 28:18), yet despite these honors and powers, He possessed, He remained a man—humble ;  and completely obedient to His Father (Phil 2:8). Indeed, Christ is God's "only begotten Son" whom He loved so much and in whom He is well pleased (Matt, 3:1 7). Considering all of these, plus the fact that Christ committed no   sin  and  has never transgressed any of His Father's will (I Pet. 2:21-22),  only the heartless and callous would say that His voluntary act of supreme sacrifice through death by crucifixion does not "cost" or mean much to His loving  Father  in heaven. The truth is, behind Christ's sacrificial death for the Church is the unquestionable and priceless love of God for mankind:
"In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:9-10,  NKJV
You   said that God, being Omnipotent, could have created a million Jesus Christ.  But the fact   is He created only one Christ (Col. 1:15) and this is according to His divine plan or wisdom (1 Cor. 2:7, 2). To suggest that the death of one Christ who is "truly human" (I Tim. 2-.5, Contemporary English Version) is not  "enough"   manifestation   of God's great for mankind is therefore, an affront to the sacrifices God and Jesus Christ  made for mankind and a disgrace to the "precious blood of Christ" with which the true Christians were redeemed:
"God will do anything for us. God even let his own Son suffer for us. God gave his Son for us all." (Rom. 8:32, Easy to-Read Version")
"Jesus Christ did the things God wanted him to do. And because of that, we are made holy   through the sacrifice of Christ's body. Christ made that sacrifice one time—enough for all time." (Heb. 10:10, Ibid.)
''You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,   but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (I  Pet. 1:1 8-19,  RSV)
Lastly, it should be noted that the biblical truth that Jesus Christ died on the cross all the more proves that He is man and not God, for God, unlike man, is immortal (Heb. 9:27; I Tim. 1:17)

___________________
Bible Study Suggestion: If you have further questions, please feel free to visit the Iglesia ni Cristo congregation nearest you. A minister or an evangelical worker would be happy to answer any biblical question you have in mind. 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links:

GEM TV

_____________________________________________

"Traditions as essential as the Bible?"


"Traditions as essential as the Bible?"




Letter to the Editor: 
 PASUGO, April 1996, P.2
AS A CATHOLIC, I believe that it is not only the Bible but also the Apostolic traditions that must be upheld. We Catholic adhere to traditions as much as to the bible because they are also Christ's words and deeds which do not contradict but only supplement the Scriptures. Just because Catholic traditions are not recorded in the bible doesn't mean that they are not necessary. As far as Christ's salvific mission is concerned, we are bound to believe. And if traditions were really unnecessary Apostle Paul would not have admonished to hold on to these, as he exhorted in II Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore. brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (New King James Version)

Narciso Teodoro 
Pampanga, Philippines


Editor's reply:
That Catholics adhere to traditions, aside from believing in the bible, is an indisputable fact that needs no further elaboration. But what do Catholics exactly mean by tradition? A Catholic bishop defines it, thus:
"By divine tradition is meant the revealed truths taught by Christ and His Apostles, which were given to the Church only by word of mouth and not through the Bible, though they were put in writing principally by the Fathers of the Church." (My Catholic  Faith, Louis LaRavoire Morrow, p.18)
Traditions, then, are the teachings that "were given to the [Catholic] Church only by word of mouth and not through the Bible." Why do Catholics believe in traditions? The same author maintains that the Bible cannot be the sole guide to salvation because
"The Bible does not contain all the truths necessary for eternal salvation." (Ibid, p.21)
Thus, Catholics uphold traditions because they believe the Bible is incomplete and hence, it needs to be supplemented. To supplement means to add something to, especially so as to make up for a lack or deficiency.
Does the Bible need to be supplemented? No. Apostle John was very clear on this matter, thus:
"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (Jn. 20:30-31, New International Version)
The Bible, by itself, is sufficient to guide man towards salvation. Hence, it does not need any supplement or addition. Those who add to God's word as well as those who subtract from His truths written in the bible will not be saved (cf. Dt. 12:32;Rev.22:18-19).
What about the supposed admonition of Apostle Paul to hold fast to traditions?  Did Apostle Paul really exhort the Christians to uphold traditions? Notice what he said:
".....stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word OR OUR EPISTLE" (New King James Version, emphasis ours).
The traditions mentioned by Apostle Paul in II Thessalonians 2:15, do not refer to Catholic traditions which have been handled down by WORD OF MOUTH only ---NOT through epistles or letters. Then, what is the real meaning of Apostle Paul's pronouncement in the said verse? In the New International Version, this is what is written:
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
What are these teachings which every Christian ought to uphold? The same verse as rendered in the Today's English Version says:
"So then, our brothers, stand firm and hold on to those truths which we taught you, both in our preaching and in our letter."
Apostle Paul advises us to hold to the truth and stand firm in it.
What is the truth? The truth is God's words which are written in the Bible and which will sanctify and guide man toward salvation (cf. John 17:17; II Timothy 3:15-17). Apostle Paul warned against people who insist that human traditions are necessary in serving the Lord, thus:
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8, NKJV)
Why did the apostles warn the observers of traditions? Because followers of traditions are all too ready to transgress God's laws in order to comply with their handed-down beliefs as the Scriptures attest:
"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men---the washing of the pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do. And He said to them, 'All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition'." (Mark 7:8-9,Ibid)
For man to be able to keep God's words faithfully, he must always bear in mind Apostle Paul's  admonition not to go beyond what is written (cf. I Cor. 4:6). Thus, although our Lord Jesus Christ did many works which were not recorded in the Scriptures, it is the written or recorded ones that will be the basis of our salvation.