The documents presented here are exchanges I have had with Jose Ventilacion, a minister of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914). In March of 2002, my wife and I received an invitation from a member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo to come to their "Bible study." We had to decline the first invitation because of schedule conflicts. The following week, a second invitation was accepted. I realize that you, the reader, were not at the meeting and so it may be difficult to understand some of these posts. I have written this introduction to the matter for this reason.
When we arrived at the house of the individual who invited us, we met Jose Ventilacion and his wife, others who were apparently members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, some who were apparently studying what Jose called the "28 Fundamental lessons" one must complete before joining his religion, and still others. Apparently, though I thought we were there for a "Bible study," they were gathered for some social time before their assembly at the YMCA. I discovered later that this Jose is probably the Iglesia Ni Cristo's champion debater, or one of them so recognized.
Early in our discussions, Jose asked me what church I belonged to. I pointed him to the church of Acts 2:47 that belonged to Christ.
Jose made his pitch for about thirty minutes virtually uninterrupted by me or anyone. He began by stating that the Iglesia Ni Cristo stresses the "importance of the prophecies" with an appeal to 2 Peter. Without quoting a passage verbatim, he referred to 2 Peter 1:19, then dropped back to 2 Peter 1:10, 11. He therefore had Peter saying that our salvation is sure owing to the prophecies. He appealed to other passages such as Acts 2:39 where he said "to you" was the Jews, "to your children," was the Gentiles, and "all who are afar off," was a "third group," you guessed it, the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914).
Suspecting Jose was about to jump to the Old Testament and begin butchering passages there as he had just done with the New Testament, I interrupted to go back and deal with the passages already cited. I began to point out that what Jose had Peter saying in 2 Peter 1 was not exactly what he said, that Peter did not say our salvation is sure owing to the prophecies, but that it was sure "if you do these things" and that "these things" were the things mentioned in verses 5-9. I pointed out that Jose was taking Peter's statements out of order and out of context. Jose immediately began to balk, interrupt, and repeatedly speak loudly and over me.
At one point Jose spoke of a time "before Jesus came to exist." Clearly implying a denial of the deity of Christ, a chief tenant of Jose's religion.
At one point I asked Jose if he were inspired. He said, "Yes." He may speak now of God inspiring him to "study hard," but in the context of that meeting, Jose's inspiration was equivalent to that of an apostle of Christ.
Jose claimed that the "your children" of Acts 2:39 was the Gentiles. When I questioned him on this he quickly fired back with an appeal to 1 Corinthians 4:15. Therefore, Paul being the spiritual father of the Gentile Corinthian Christians proved that "your children" of Acts 2:39 referred to the Jews being spiritual fathers to the Gentiles. An amazing bit of exegesis from this champion debater, is it not?
Jose also claimed that one could not understand the scriptures unless an inspired preacher was there to interpret. Sound familiar? Can you guess who is the inspired preacher or organization? His proof of this was Acts 8:34, 35. I dealt with this in my written answer, however, you might also note where in one case uninspired people, without guidance of any inspired persons, were able to check the validity of the message of the inspired preacher, Paul. Read Acts 17:10-12. I also pointed out (in that meeting) Romans 10:17 which states, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Every time I tried to quote the second part of that verse, "and hearing by the word of God," Jose would raise his voice and talk over me. He also appealed to Ephesians 1:13 to prove that one could not understand without an inspired preacher helping. He said that while the preacher preached the Holy Spirit was "working in the background" on the hearer and that this passage proved it. He was trying to make the "sealing" there of the Holy Spirit equivalent to His "working in the background." But I pointed out that the passage shows that the trusting followed the hearing, and that the sealing followed the trusting. Whatever the "sealing" was in this text, it was not something the preacher had, but it was something the hearer had, and that not until after they believed. Certainly understanding goes before believing. Therefore the text fell short of helping Jose. Jose swapped horses (or chickens) more times than I could count on this text. He had been talking about the need for an inspired preacher, then would talk of the Spirit "working in the background" on the hearer, and was trying to use this passage to say both, but it says neither. The sealing was that of the hearer, not the preacher.
Jose claimed that Alexander Campbell "started the Reformation Movement." This is false and showed Jose's lack of historical knowledge and much more his lack of inspiration. I denied that such was true, and Jose immediately began to backpedal by dropping other names connected to the movement. But he already made his mistake. I caught him on this and part of his defense was to build a straw man of me, i.e., that I did not know my history. But I had mentioned nothing of history, he did, and if I did not know my history why was he the one mistaken about it? Further, this was a part of another straw man which Jose was attempting to construct, namely, he was trying to remove the connection I have to Christ through the scriptures and get me connected solely to the Campbells of the Restoration Movement. You see, in Jose's religion, there is no connection to Christ to be had except through his religion. One could probably show more easily the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, Felix Manalo's, connection to the Restoration Movement than that of myself.
Jose claimed that the "Catholic Church existed in the second century." I asked him to prove that and he claimed he found the term "katholikos" used in the second century, but he would not share with us the place of the quotation and still has not. This was a part of his other claim that there was not a single faithful Christian in the second century. His appeal was to 1 Timothy 4:1. I pointed out that that passage may point to a general apostasy, but does not mean that the apostasy would be complete down to the last individual. I also appealed to Luke 8:11, that even if it were as Jose claimed, the seed was still present. Ah, but that's where Jose's theory comes into play that one cannot understand this "seed" without the inspired Jose's help.
So, the pitch was basically this: The Jews first, Gentiles second, then, centuries later around 1914, the Iglesia Ni Cristo third. There was a complete apostasy right down to the last individual in the second century. Then, along comes Felix Manalo to found the third group and so the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914) is the "true church of Christ today." Too bad for all the poor souls of the many intervening centuries.
Jose also dropped the names of a "Dr. Billy Washington" and a "Lanning Courtney." The implication was that these men either were afraid to debate Jose or had debated and lost. The implication was not clear as to which, but it was clear that Jose was crowing over something. When you read these documents, note Jose's actions or lack thereof, and examine the other links provided, you will come to understand why Jose crows (or barks).
It is my hope that this introduction is helpful to your understanding the other documents I have posted.
Patrick Kelly
Wednesday, August 28, 2002