SA JUAN 1:1 AT 14, SINO ANG TUNAY NA DIYOS?

SA JUAN 1:1 AT 14, SINO ANG TUNAY NA DIYOS?

SI CRISTO BA ay Diyos o tao?  Siya ba ay tao at Diyos, o tao at hindi Diyos?  Ipinakikilala ng Biblia ang maraming katangian at karangalan ni Cristo.  Siya ay ginawang Panginoon (Gawa: 36), Tagapagligtas (Gawa 5:31), Pangulo ng Iglesia (Col. 1:18), at ipinag-utos Siyang sambahin (Filip. 2:9-11).

     Sa kabila ng lahat ng Kaniyang katangian, pinatutunayan ng mga propeta ng Panginoong Diyos, ng mga apostol, at ng Panginoong Jesucristo mismo na Siya ay tao sa Kaniyang likas na kalagayan at Siya’y iba sa tunay na Diyos (Isa. 53:3; Mat. 1:18, 20; Gawa 2:22-24, Magandang Balita Biblia; I Tim. 2:5; Juan 8:40).

     Ngunit sa kabila ng katotohanang ito, marami pa rin sa hanay ng mga nagpapakilalang Cristiano ang naniniwalang Diyos ang Panginoong Jesucristo.  Gumagamit sila ng mga talata ng Biblia upang patunayan na aral ng Biblia ang paniniwala nilang ito.

     Ang isa sa mga itinuturing nilang malalakas daw na batayan ng kanilang paniniwalang ito ay ang isinasaad sa Juan 1:1 at 14 na doon ay itinuturo diumano ni Apostol Juan na si Cristo ay Diyos na nagkatawang-tao.  Bago pa raw likhain ang sanlibutan ay naroon na Siya o eksistido na.  Tama ba ang kanilang pagkaunawa sa nilalaman ng mga talatang ito?  Suriin natin ang nilalaman ng Juan 1:1 at 14:

     “Sa pasimula ay ang Salita, at ang Salita ay sumasa Dios, at ang Salita ay Dios.

     “Nagkatawang-tao ang Salita at tumahan sa gitna natin …” (New Pilipino Version)

     Paano inuunawa ng iba ang mga talatang ito?  Si Cristo raw ang Salita na may likas na kalagayan na (o eksistido na) noon pang una.  Yayamang si Cristo raw ang Salita at ang Salita ay Diyos, kaya si Cristo raw ay Diyos na umiiral na sa pasimula pa lamang at pagkatapos ay nagkatawang-tao.  Ito ang aral nila na nakapaloob sa sinasabi nilang inkarnasyon o pagkakatawang-tao ng Diyos.

     Ano ang dapat nating mapansin sa nilalaman ng Juan 1:1 at 14?  Una, walang sinasabi sa mga talatang ito na si Cristo ay eksistido o umiiral na sa pasimula pa lamang.  Ikalawa, wala ring sinasabi rito na si Cristo ang tunay na Diyos.  Ikatlo, wala ring sinasabi sa mga talatang ito na si Cristo ay Diyos na nagkatawang-tao.

     Kaya, suriin natin ang bawat sugnay (clause) ng talatang Juan 1:1 at ang unang sugnay ng talatang 14.  Paano dapat unawain ang mga sugnay ng mga talatang ito na gaya ng sumusunod?

a)       Sa pasimula ay ang Salita

b)      At ang Salita ay sumasa Dios

c)       At ang Salita ay Dios

d)      Nagkatawang-tao ang Salita (talatang 14)

‘SA PASIMULA AY ANG SALITA’

Talakayin natin ang nilalaman ng unang sugnay.  Paano dapat unawain ang sinabi ni Apostol Juan na, “Nang pasimula ay ang Salita”?  Ano ba ang kahulugan ng terminong “Salita”?  Ito ba ay Cristo na may kalagayan na?  Ganito ang sinasabi sa footnote ng Juan 1:1 sa Bagong Tipan na isinalin ng paring Katoliko na si G. Juan Trinidad:

     “Verbo … at ang Anak ay tinawag Niyang isang uri ng banaag ng kaisipan na nagmumula sa Ama …”

     Ang paniniwala ng Iglesia Katolika tungkol kay Cristo ay Siya ay Diyos.  Ano ang pakahulugan ng isang awtoridad ng Iglesia katolika sa terminong “Verbo”?  Hindi likas na kalagayan kundi isang uri ng banaag ng kaisipan na nagmula sa Ama (Diyos).  Iba ang Verbo o Salita sa tunay na Diyos na kinaroroonan ng salita o kaisipan.  Kaya, sa pasimula ay hindi pa eksistido o hindi pa umiiral ang Panginoong Jesucristo kundi nasa isip pa lamang siya ng Diyos.

     Namalagi ba Siyang nasa isip ng Diyos?  Hindi.  Dumating ang panahong si Cristo ay ipinangako ng Diyos, gaya ng nakasulat sa Roma 1:2-3:

     “Na kaniyang ipinangako nang una sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang mga propeta sa mga banal na kasulatan, Tungkol sa kaniyang Anak, na ipinanganak sa binhi ni David ayon sa laman.”

     Samakatuwid, wala pang umiiral na Cristo sa pasimula kundi Siya ay pangako pa lamang ng Diyos.  Sa halamanan pa lamang ng Eden ay sinalita na ng Diyos ang tungkol kay Cristo (Gen. 3:15) at pagkatapos ay Kaniyang ipinangako kay Abraham (Gen. 17:7; Gal. 3:16).  Ang aral bang ito ng Biblia tungkol sa pagkakaroon ng Cristo na sa pasimula’y balak, panukala o plano pa lamang ng Diyos ay sinang-ayunan maging ng mga nagtuturong si Cristo ay Diyos, gaya ng Iglesia Katolika?  Ganito ang sinasabi ng isang aklat-Katoliko na pinamagatang The Teaching of Christ:  A Catholic Catechism for Adults, pahina 74:

     “Si Cristo ay sadyang inilalarawan mula pa sa pasimula ng kasaysayan ng tao.’  ‘… Si Cristo na siyang magtitipon sa lahat ng anak ng Diyos sa pamamagitan ng pagkakaisa sa Kaniyang mistikal na Katawan, na ito, ay ang Iglesia, ay Siyang “panganay sa lahat ng nilalang” (Col. 1:15).’  ‘… Si Cristo ang tiyak na tiyak na una sa banal na plano.’”1

     Tinatanggap maging ng mga awtoridad Katoliko na si Cristo ay una sa banal na plano o panukala ng Diyos upang maging panganay sa lahat ng nilalang tulad ng isinasaad sa Colosas 1:15.  Samakatuwid, wala pang Cristo sa kalagayan sa pasimula kundi plano, balak o nasa isip pa lamang Siya ng Diyos.  Kaya sinasabi sa unang sugnay (clause) ng Juan 1:1 na, “Sa pasimula ay ang Salita” (NPV)

‘AT ANG SALITA AY SUMASA DIOS’

Paano ang wastong pag-unawa sa sinabi ni Apostol Juan sa ikalawang sugnay ng Juan 1:1 na, “at ang Salita ay sumasa Dios”?  Ihambing natin ito sa itinuturo din ng Biblia na sa pasimula pa lamang o bago pa lalangin ang daigdig, ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay nasa isip na ng Diyos.  Ito ang pinatutunayan ni Apostol Pedro sa kaniyang sulat sa I Pedro 1:20:

     “Nasa isip na siya ng Diyos bago pa lalangin ang daigdig ngunit ipinakilala Siya ngayong huling panahon dahil sa inyo.” (Salin ni Trinidad)

     Sa liwanag ng katotohanang ito, na sa Biblia rin nakasulat, dapat nating unawain ang sinabing “ang Salita ay sumasa Dios.”  Sumasa Diyos ang Kaniyang salita.  Siya ang may-ari o pinagmulan ng salita.  Kapag tinanggap na may kalagayan na sa pasimula ang Salita, bilang isang Diyos, at isinaalang-alang ang sinasabi sa ikalawang sugnay ng Juan 1:1 na “ang Salita ay sumasa Dios,” lilitaw na dalawa ang tunay na Diyos:  ang Salita at ang kinaroroonan ng Salita.  Labag ito sa aral ng Biblia na iisa lamang ang tunay na Diyos (Juan 17:1, 3; I Cor. 8:6).

     Kailan nagkaroon ng katuparan ang sa pasimula ay salita, plano o pangako pa lamang ng Diyos ukol sa Cristo?  Nang Siya ay ipagdalang-tao at ipanganak ng Kaniyang ina na si Maria.  Ito ang pinatutunayan sa Galacia 4:4:

     “ Datapuwa't nang dumating ang kapanahunan, ay sinugo ng Dios ang kaniyang Anak, na ipinanganak ng isang babae, na ipinanganak sa ilalim ng kautusan.”

     Nang hindi pa ipinagdadalang-tao at ipinanganganak ni Maria ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay hindi pa Siya umiiral, hindi pa Siya eksistido o wala pa Siyang kalagayan.  Sa pasimula ay salita o plano pa lamang ang tungkol sa pagkakaroon ng Cristo.  Ang nagplano o nagsalita ay ang Diyos.  Kaya sinabi ni Apostol Juan sa ikalawang sugnay na, “ang Salita ay sumasa Dios.”  Kung gayon, sino ang tinutukoy ni Apostol Juan na tunay na Diyos sa ikalawang sugnay ng Juan 1:1 (“ang Salita ay sumasa Dios”) na kinaroroonan ng Verbo o ng salita?  Hindi si Cristo kundi ang Ama.  Ito ang pinatutunayan sa sulat din ni Apostol Juan sa Juan 17:1, 3:

     “Pagkasabi ni Jesus nito, tumingala Siya sa langit at nagsabi, ‘Ama, dumating na ang oras. … At ito ang buhay na walang hanggan—ang makilala Ka nila, Ikaw na kaisa-isang tunay na Dios, at si Jesu-Cristong sinugo Mo.’” (Salita ng Buhay)

     Pansinin natin na ang sumulat ng Juan 1:1, 14 ay si Apostol Juan na siya ring sumulat ng Juan 17:1 at 3.  Hindi niya sasalungatin ang kaniyang sariling sulat at pahayag na natutuhan niya mismo sa ating Panginoong Jesucristo.  Sino ang ipinakilalang tunay na Diyos sa sulat ni Apostol Juan?  Ang Ama at hindi si Cristo.

‘AT ANG SALITA AY DIOS’

Suriin naman natin ang sinabi ni Apostol Juan sa ikatlong sugnay ng Juan 1:1 na “at ang salita ay Dios.”  Ano ang pagkakagamit ng terminong “Dios” sa ikatlong sugnay ng talatang ating pinag-aaralan?  Hindi niya ito ginamit bilang isang pangngalan (noun) kundi bilang isang pang-uri (adjective).  Inuuri lamang niya ang salita ng Diyos.  Ano ang katunayan nito ayon sa Biblia?  Ano ba ang katangian ng salita ng Diyos?  Ang salita ng Diyos ay makapangyarihan, gaya ng mababasa sa Lucas 1:37.  Ganito ang pahayag:

     “Sapagka't walang salitang mula sa Dios na di may kapangyarihan.”

     Ano rin ang katangian o uri ng Panginoong Diyos na nagsalita?  Ganito ang Kaniyang patotoo mismo sa Genesis 35:11:

     “At sinabi sa kaniya ng Dios, ako ang Dios na Makapangyarihan sa lahat; …”

     Samakatuwid, magkauri ang Diyos at ang kaniyang salita sapagkat taglay ng salita ng Diyos ang kapangyarihan ng Diyos na nagsalita.  Kapag sinalita ng Diyos ay tiyak na matutupad (Isa. 46:11).  Ang katotohanang ito’y tinatanggap maging ng ibang mga nagsuri.  Sa aklat na The New Bible Dictionary, ganito ang sinasabi:

     “Ang salita ay may kapangyarihang katulad ng sa Diyos na nagsalita nito.” (p. 703)2

     Kaya, ginamit ang terminong “Diyos” sa ikatlong sugnay ng Juan 1:1 (“ang Salita ay Dios”) hindi bilang isang pangngalan (noun) kundi bilang pang-uri (adjective).  Inuuri lamang ang salita o ang verbo ng Diyos.  Kauri ng Diyos ang Kaniyang salita sa kapangyarihan kaya sinabing “ang Salita ay Dios.”  Ayon din sa iba pang mga nagsuri, kaya sinabing “ang salita ay Dios” ay upang ipakilala o ilarawan ang uri ng Salita, gaya ng isinasaad sa Aid To Bible Understanding:

     “Una, dapat mapansin na sa teksto mismo ay ipinakikita na ang Salita ay ‘kasama ng Diyos,’ dahil dito ay hindi maaaring ‘maging Diyos,’ samakatuwid baga’y, ang Makapangyarihang Diyos. (Pansinin din ang bersikulo 2, na hindi na sana kailangan kung sinasabi sa bersikulo 1 na ang Salita ay ang Diyos.)  Bilang karagdagan, ang salitang katumbas ng ‘Diyos’ (Griyego, the-os) sa ikalawang paglitaw nito sa bersikulo ay walang pantukoy na ‘ang’ (Griyego, ho).  Tungkol sa katotohanang ito, sinabi ni Obispo Westcott, kasamang gumawa ng Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, na:  ‘Talagang ito ay hindi dapat magkaroon ng pantukoy (the-os, hindi ho the-os) yayamang ito ay paglalarawan sa uri ng Salita at hindi nagtuturo ng Kaniyang Persona.’  (Sinipi mula sa pahina 116 ng An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, na sinulat ni Prof. C.F.D. Moule, 1953 ed.)  Kinikilala rin ng iba pang tagapagsalin na ang terminong Griyego ay ginamit bilang isang pang-uri upang maglarawan sa uri ng Salita, kaya isinalin nila ang parirala nang ganito:  ‘ang Salita ay banal.’” (p. 919)3

     Ayon din sa aklat na ito, ang terminong “Diyos” ay hindi ginamit na pangngalan (noun) kundi pang-uri (adjective), sapagkat ginamit ito upang uriin at ilarawan ang Salita.  Ang salita ay Diyos.  Dapat ding mapansin na sa mga manuskritong Griyego ng Bagong Tipan, ang terminong “diyos” sa nabanggit na sugnay ay walang pantukoy na “ang” (ang katumbas nito sa Griyego ay ho) samantalang kapag ang terminong “Diyos” ay ginagamit bilang pangngalan (noun) ito ay ginagamitan ng pantukoy, samakatuwid baga’y “ang Diyos” (sa Griyego, ho Theos).  Ito rin ang pinatutunayan ni R. H. Strachan, D.D. sa kaniyang aklat na The Fourth Gospel:  Its Significance and Environment:

     “Ang mga pangwakas na salita ng tal. 1 ay dapat isaling, ‘Ang Logos ay banal.’   Dito, ang salitang theos ay walang pantukoy, na nangangahulugang ito ay pang-uri.” (pp. 99)4

     Dahil walang pantukoy na “ang” (sa Griyego, ho) ang terminong “diyos” (sa Griyego, theos) sa ikatlong sugnay ng Juan 1:1, ito ay ginamit bilang pang-uri (adjective) at hindi bilang pangngalan (noun).  Hindi sinabi ni Apostol Juan na “ang Salita ay ang Dios” kundi “ang Salita ay Dios.”  Kaya, sa ibang mga salin ng Biblia ay sinasabi sa ikatlong sugnay ng Juan 1:1 na “ang Salita ay banal” (“the Logos was divine”—Moffatt’s Translation; “the word was divine”—Goodspeed’s Translation).

‘NAGKATAWANG-TAO ANG SALITA’

Isa ring karaniwang paniniwala na si Cristo ay Diyos na nagkatawang-tao dahil sinasabi sa Juan 1:14 na, “nagkatawang-tao ang Verbo.”  Para sa mga taong nagtataglay ng ganitong paniniwala, may dalawang likas na kalagayan si Jesucristo:  taong totoo at Diyos na totoo.  Ito ay maling pag-unawa sa nakasulat sa Biblia.  Una, walang nakasulat sa Juan 1:14 na “ang Diyos ay nagkatawang-tao.”  Ikalawa, hindi lamang wala, kundi labag pa, sa Biblia ang paniniwalang ito sapagkat ang Diyos ay hindi tao (Ose. 11:9) at ang tao ay hindi Diyos (Ezek. 28:9).  Ikatlo, kapag tinanggap ang paniniwala na ang Diyos ay nagkatawang-tao, na mula sa kalagayang espiritu na walang laman at mga buto (Juan 4:24; Lu. 24:39 ay naging tao, labag din ito sa aral ng Biblia sapagkat ang Diyos ay hindi nagbabago ni may anino man ng pag-iiba (Mal. 3:6, NPV; Sant. 1:17).  Kung gayon, paano natin dapat unawain ang sinasabi sa talatang 14 na “Nagkatawang-tao ang Salita”?  Natupad ang salita plano ng Diyos tungkol sa pagkakaroon ng Cristo, at tao ang katuparan nito.  Ganito ang mababasa sa Mateo 1:18, 20:

     “Ang pagkapanganak nga kay Jesucristo ay ganito: Nang si Maria na kaniyang ina ay magaasawa kay Jose, bago sila magsama ay nasumpungang siya'y nagdadalang-tao sa pamamagitan ng Espiritu Santo. …Datapuwa't samantalang pinagiisip niya ito, narito, ang isang anghel ng Panginoon ay napakita sa kaniya sa panaginip, na nagsasabi: Jose, anak ni David, huwag kang mangamba sa pagtanggap kay Maria na iyong asawa: sapagka't ang kaniyang dinadalang-tao ay sa Espiritu Santo.”

     Ang Diyos ba na nagsalita o ang kinaroroonan ng Salita ang nagkatawang-tao gaya ng ibinibigay na pakahulugan ng iba? Hindi.  Ang nakasulat sa Juan 1:14 ay maliwanag:  “Nagkatawang-tao ang Salita” (NPV).  Walang sinasabi sa talata na ang Diyos na nagsalita ang nagkatawang-tao.  Kaya sa King James Version ang pagkakasalin ay “And the Word was made flesh” [At ang Salita ay ginawang laman].  Kung may isang taong nagplano na siya’y magtatayo ng bahay, may bahay na ba?  Wala pa dahil plano o salita pa lamang.  Ang salita o planong iyon ay kaisipan at sumasa kaniya sapagkat siya ang nabalak at pinagmulan niyon.  Kalian nagkaroon ng bahay?  Nang matupad ang plano ukol sa kayarian nito.  Nang maitayo na ang bahay, siya ba, na nagsalita, ang naging bahay?  Hindi.  Kaya, hindi rin ang Diyos na nagsalita ang nagkatawang-tao.  Kung gayon, ano ang katumbas ng sinabing “Nagkatawang-tao ang Salita”?  Natupad ang plano, balak o salita ng Diyos tungkol sa pagkakaroon ng Cristo na sa pasimula’y salita pa lamang ng Diyos—ang katuparan ay tao sa likas na kalagayan.

     Bilang pangwakas, napatunayan natin na nagkamali ng pagkaunawa sa Juan 1:1, 14 ang mga gumagamit ng mga talatang ito upang patunayang si Cristo diumano ay Diyos na nagkatawang-tao.  Labag sa aral ng Biblia ang paniniwalang ang Diyos ay nagkatawang-tao.  Labag din sa aral ng Biblia ang paniniwalang si Cristo ay Diyos na totoo at tao pang totoo.  Ang Ama ang kaisa-isang tunay na Diyos, at ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay sugo ng Diyos—ito ang pagkilalang may buhay na walang hanggan (Juan 17:1, 3, SNB.  *

___________________________________________

ENDNOTES:

1         “ ‘Christ was already foreshadowed at the very beginning of human history.’ ‘Christ who was to gather together all the children of men into the unity of His Mystical Body, that is, the Church is the “first-born of  all creation” (Col. 1:15).’  ‘… Christ is absolutely first in the divine plan.’”  (Lawler, Ronald, O.F.M. Cap., et al., ed.  The Teaching of Christ:  A Catholic Catechism for Adults.  Huntington, Indiana:  Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1976.)

2         “The word possesses a like power to the God who speaks.” (J.D. Douglas, ed. The New Bible Dictionary. London:  Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1962.)

3         “ ‘First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the word was ‘with God,’ hence could not ‘be God,’ that is, be the Almighty God.  (Note also verse 2, which would be unnecessary if verse 1 actually showed the Word to be God.)  Additionally, the word for ‘god’ (Greek, the-os) in its second occurrence in the verse is without the definite article ‘the’ (Greek, ho).  Regarding this fact, Bishop Westcott, coproducer of the noted Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, says:  ‘It is necessarily without the article (the-os not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify his person.’ (Quoted from page 116 of An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by Professor C.F.D. Moule 1953. Ed.) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term is used as an adjective to describe the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase:  the Word was divine.” (Aid To Bible Understanding.  Pennsylvania:  Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1971.)

4         “The closing words of v. 1 should be translated, ‘the Logos was divine.’  Here the word theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective.” (Strachan, R. H., D.D.  The Fourth Gospel:  Its Significance and Environment, 3^rd ed., London:  SCM Press Ltd., 1941.)

Sinulat ni:

Kapatid na MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL

Kinopya mula sa:

PASUGO GOD’S MESSAGE | NOVEMBER 2004 | VOLUME 56 | NUMBER 11 | PAGES 21-24

Emphasis:

ADMIN.

WHO’S DISPARAGING CHRIST?

WHO’S

DISPARAGING

CHRIST?

Dominador C. Santos

WHILE MANY religions persist in teaching that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God — believing that in so doing they elevate Him to a pedestal of magnificence and grandeur — the Iglesia ni Cristo, Church of Christ, remains affirming that He is a man.  And for this, the Church of Christ gets accused of allegedly dishonoring Jesus.  How valid is this accusation?  Does the Church really impute dishonor to our Lord?

ON RECOGNITION OF CHRIST

     How does the Iglesia ni Cristo recognize Jesus Christ based upon the teaching of the Holy Scriptures?  Christ Jesus is acknowledged by this Church as one who is highly exalted by God, one who is given the name which is above every name, and one who should be worshipped in fulfillment of God’s command:

“Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11, RSV)

     In recognizing Christ the biblical way, God is glorified according to the Apostle Paul.  The Iglesia ni Cristo members not only worship Jesus Christ but also esteem the name given to Him by God, and by God’s will they are called by that name which is above every name.  Should they be accused of dishonoring Christ when in fact they are the bearers of the honorable name?

     Who really impute dishonor to Christ?  The Apostle James point out:  " Is it not they who blaspheme the honorable name which was invoked over you?"  (James 2:7, Ibid.)  The one guilty of an ignominious act against our Lord are the blasphemers of His name.  Those who reject Christ’s name blaspheme the honorable name of the Lord.  Who then rejects the name of Christ?  Obviously, not the Iglesia ni Cristo, Chucrh of Christ.  Remember, the true servants of God are called by the name of Christ, hence, they are blessed although they are reproached.  "If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you." (I Pt. 4:14, Ibid.)

     Are the Catholics called by the name of Christ?  While they take pride in being called Catholic, they at the same time reject the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  It is obvious for anyone to see how our Lord is insulted directly or indirectly by an individual or group of individuals who dropped the name of Christ and sported other names which have no bearing for salvation.

"Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well…. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:10, 12, Ibid.)

     The sheep of Christ — the true people of God — are called by His name and this is one way of recognizing them, considering the truth that this is how our Lord recognizes His own servants.  “ To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name….” (Jn. 10:3, Ibid.)

     The name referred to in this citation is Christ’s name (I Pt. 4:14).  How is the name of Christ called upon His sheep — the servants of God?

“Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.” (Acts 20:28, Lamsa)

     The Iglesia ni Cristo adheres to the truth that there is only one mediator between God and men.  No less than the Apostle Paul pronounces this doctrine in his letter to Timothy.  “ For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (I Tim. 2:5, RSV)

This biblical tenet about Jesus Christ’s mediatorial function must not be taken for granted by men, since it has something to do with the remission of sin they committed before God.  People should know whom to approach, for only then could their sins be forgiven.  God appointed our Lord Jesus Christ alone to serve as a ransom for the sins of His people.

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” (Rom. 3:25, KJV)

Being the only mediator between God and men is an honor, glory and prestige for Christ.  This is an exclusive right given to Him by God.  Is anybody allowed to augment or change a teaching of God?  This is the declaration of God:  "Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it."(Deut. 12:32, RSV).

     God is very strict about His teachings.  He does not allow anyone to add anything to it or take something from them.  The Gospel according to Matthew delineated the particular rule laid down by God in fulfilling His laws.  Specially, even a period nor a comma should not be added to or diminished from the law:

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5:18-19, KJV)

     Do you know who broke this law of God pertaining to His words?  Do you know who deprived our Lord Jesus Christ of His sole mediatorial authority, which again is an infamous act against Him?  A Catholic book, Catechism on True Devotion to Mary, unfolds to us the following, on page 17:

“… Mary is our spiritual Mother because she cooperated with Jesus in giving us our spiritual life of grace….But God has done even greater things for our Lady.  Besides using her as His helper in giving us grace, He has deemed that she should intercede for, and dispense to us, every grace that we receive…. He has placed her as the Mediatrix between Himself and us; for us to refuse to go back to Him by means of Mary, would be to ignore his will in the matter.” [Rev. Ralph W. Beiting, Catechism on True Devotion to Mary, 2^nd Ed. (Pasay City, Philippines:  Society of St. Paul, 1958]

     The Catholic Church as proven by the above citation has opposed the strict rule promulgated by God regarding His words.  The priest, Ralph W. Beiting, boldly declares that Virgin Mary is another intercessor, a mediatrix so-to-speak, a doctrine which is contrary to the Scriptures.  The Catholic Church even assumes that it is God who placed Mary to be a Mediatrix between Himself and men.  When did God do it?  Where can we find it in the Gospel?  And as if the Catholic Church is not satisfied yet with Mary being a Mediatrix, she also introduces so many intercessors in behalf of man’s sin:

“… What he does in this:  He has freely willed that we should make use of the intercession of the saints as well as of Mary, with this differences:  Mary’s intercession is always at work, her realm is universal, while the domain of any other saint is limited, and, in a way, occasional.  Therefore we not merely may, but should, pay honor to various saints, our patron saints, the patron of our school, of our parish, and various others according to our own position, wishes and needs. …” [William G. Most, Mary In Our Life (n. p.:  P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1959, pp. 71-72]

     We can glean the fact that the Catholic Church gained no satisfaction from the pure Gospel taught by Christ and the Apostles that the intercessor or mediator between God and men is only one.  Could you think of the great dishonor that Church brings to Christ?  Who placed Mary, the other saints and the angels as intercessors?  God has never done it.  Who gave them (Catholic Church) the authority to overrule the teaching of God and the strict provisions this teaching carries?

     We can never benefit from the teaching which is different from the teaching of the Apostles.  Such a teaching, so with the teacher, is worthy of rejection.  "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8, KJV)

     As we dig deeper in our study, we can’t help but to recollect the prophetic utterance of the Apostle Peter about false prophets who will reject and deny Christ.

“ But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (II Pt. 2:1, RSV)

     There will be a denunciation of our Lord Jesus Christ at the advent of the false prophets.  This is the forewarning of the Apostle Peter to the early Christians.  How will Christ be denounced or rejected?  The Apostle further states:

“Surely you have tasted that the Lord is good.  So come to Him, our living stone — the stone rejected by men but choice and precious in the sight of God.  Come, and let yourselves be built, as living stones, into a spiritual temple; become a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  For it stands written:  ‘I lay in Zion a choice corner-stone of great worth.  The man who has faith in it will not be put to shame.’” (I Pt. 2:3-6, The New English Bible)

     The Apostle Peter himself knew well that our Lord Jesus Christ would be rejected as the corner-stone or foundation stone whereon the true believers are built.  Our Lord God makes it certain that those who believe that Christ is the foundation stone will not be put to shame.  Who then will be put to shame?  It’s naturally those who have no faith in it.  Those who change Christ for another foundation.  Who did it?  Let us quote the statement of a Catholic Cardinal:

“The word Peter, in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, which our Savior spoke, means a rock. … Jesus, our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter.  Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, …” [James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, The Faith of Our Fathers, 110^th ed. (New York:  P.J. Kenedy & Sons, n.d.), pp. 81-82]

     James Cardinal Gibbons readily admits that the Catholic Church teaches that Peter is the foundation stone of the true Church.  He (the Cardinal) speaks then contrary to what the Apostle Peter had declared that Christ is the foundation stone of the true Church.  Who do you think should be believed:  the Apostle Peter or Cardinal Gibbons of the Catholic Church?  Our keen mind will definitely give right judgment to the creditable teaching.  Let us not be forgetful about the precautionary measure given by the Apostle Paul, that is, that even them or an angel from heaven who preach any other Gospel which they did not preach be accursed.

     Catholic claim Christ as the primary stone and Peter as the secondary stone to justify their teaching.  Where can we find the teaching that Peter is the secondary stone?  Is it not a monumental lie to say or to presume so high that the Apostle Peter was laid as a secondary foundation stone by God?  That is a great usurpation of God’s authority.  “There can be no other foundation beyond that which is already laid; I mean Jesus Christ himself” (I Cor. 3:11, TNEB).

     Christ as the foundation stone is unalternable.  God proves that the allegation of the Catholic Church that the Apostle Peter is the secondary stone is a mere fraud:

“ And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

“ In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

“In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:20-22, KJV)

      Peter, being an Apostle, was naturally built upon Christ, the foundation stone, in whom the whole building is fitly framed together as a holy temple in the Lord.  Yes, Peter is considered a stone, just as all the members of the Church built by Christ are, as stated in the Bible:

“He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said ‘You are Simon son of John.  You shall be called Cephas’ (that is, Peter, the Rock).” (John 1:42, TNEB)

“So come to him, our living Stone—the stone rejected by men but choice and precious in the sight of God.  Come, and let yourselves be built, as living stones, into a spiritual temple; become a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (I Pt. 2:4-5, Ibid.)

     Never a part or a portion of the building or the Church (I Tim. 3:15), was built upon Peter.  And never in his life did Peter teach that he is the foundation stone of the Church, although he himself is a stone.

     Those who “make” Peter a corner stone of the Church are the ones who commit blasphemy against Jesus Christ, who is the only corner-stone of His Church.

     When the Iglesia ni Cristo teaches that our Lord Jesus is a man and never a God in His state of being, others turn red-hot in anger.  They accused the Iglesia ni Cristo of dishonoring Christ.  While it is true that the Catholic Church accepts that Christ is a man, she also believes that He is God.  Is the man Christ Jesus also the God whom we must believe and worship?  Who is the one true God whom we must know and worship?

“AFTER THESE WORDS Jesus looked up to heaven and said:  ‘Father, the hour has come.  Glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee…. This is eternal life:  to know thee who alone art truly God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (Jn. 17:1, 3, TNEB)

     The only true God introduced by our Lord Jesus Christ is His Father.  He even looked up to heaven, the dwelling place of God, when He proclaimed this truth.  What is the significance if man believes that the Father alone is the true God?  Christ declares:  This is eternal life.  Eternal life is for those who believe that the only true God is the Father, not Christ.  Jesus Christ is flesh, a man.  To whom do those who believe that Christ is flesh or man belong?  “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” (I Jn. 4:2, KJV)

     A man is of God if he confesses or believes that Jesus is flesh or a man.  How about if an individual confesses otherwise, or if does not believe that Christ is flesh or a man?  Is he of God?

“Many deceivers have gone out into the world, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.  These are the persons described as the Antichrist, the arch-deceiver.  Beware of them, so that you may not lose all that we worked for, but receive your reward in full.” (II Jn. 1:7-8, TNEB)

     It is now high time for us to know who the antichrists really are.  Those who preach that Christ is God are against Christ.  They are the arch-deceiver, so we must beware of them.  To presume that Christ is God is worth disparaging Him — a great blasphemy against Him, considering the truth that He is a man.  We should acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ not more than what the Bible teaches in order not to fall prey to, nor be one of, the antichrists.  —  *

Copied from PASUGO GOD’S MESSAGE/MARCH-APRIL 1981/VOLUME 33/NUMBER 2/PAGES 14-17