AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PUBLIC
and
Mr. Jose Ventilacion
240 Thicket Street
S. Weymouth, MA 02190-1237
cc.
Iglesia Ni Cristo
700 Old Randolph Street
Abington, MA 02352
March 31, 2002
Dear Mr. Ventilacion,
I am in receipt of your letter of March 22, 2002 which will be dealt with soon enough. First, however, I will deal with what you have already revealed of yourself and your doctrine in the short amount of time we were together on March 16, 2002.
I find the people of the Philippines generally more receptive to the truth of the scriptures than people here in the states. Yet, in every place you will find those who simply refuse to see. Rather than look at the truth and deal with it squarely, they choose to look the other way rather than repent. I hope this does not describe you. Just moments before we engaged in a "study," you asked concerning my own Bible knowledge and said that we "need not insult each other's intelligence," yet, in the study you consistently did that very thing. When I tried to speak, I was not allowed to finish my sentences, or often speak at all. This here was the first mark of your lack of inspiration. You spoke of "comparative Bible study," but there was no comparison allowed for you would simply raise your voice, interrupt, and do everything in your power to keep me silent. How is that "comparative" when only one side is heard? After the "study," after belittling me and making up straw men and tearing them down, all of a sudden you were polite to me, even once referring to me as "brother." You should be polite at all times and be "be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath." (1)
I was invited twice to what I was twice told would be a "Bible study." To this I agreed. I did not realize you don't use Bibles in your "Bible study." Shame on those who use the method of uninformed consent to win converts.
In this letter I will underline, capitalize, italicize, or embolden freely for the sake of emphasis. I will quote from the King James and New King James versions of the Bible. "Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly ...." (2)
THE PROPHETIC WORD CONFIRMED
You began your speech before the audience (which never once opened a Bible) with a reference to 2 Pet 1:19, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts ...." After this you backed up and cited 2 Pet 1:10, "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble ...." Then you tied the two together to say that the calling and election is sure owing to the prophecy. The audience never saw the passages you cited in their context, and you refused to look at the context. I tried to point out to you that that was not exactly what Peter said. What this truly inspired apostle said was 2 Pet 1:5-10, "But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble ...." Therefore, what Peter really said was that the Christians made their call and election sure, not by the prophecy, but by doing the things Peter just enumerated.
Here is the second point I was trying to make, but you failed to grasp it. If you still do not grasp it, read again and again until you do. The point was, the confirmation of the prophetic word is not the prophetic word. I will say it again, but reverse the order so that you do not miss it: the prophetic word is not the confirmation. For some reason you thought I was saying that the two were the same thing. You were making me out to be saying that the transfiguration was the prophecy when you rebutted that, "but the transfiguration is not in prophecy." Nobody said it was. The transfiguration was a miracle Peter witnessed which made the "prophetic word confirmed." Do you understand? What were miracles for? To confirm the word. (Heb.2:1-4; Mark 16:20) ".... confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit ...." Now, let us hear Peter in the full context. He said, 2 Pet 1:16-21, "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." What did Peter say confirmed the prophetic word to him? He said, "eyewitnesses" and "we heard." He then said, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed ...." Many miracles are recorded in the New Testament. The miracles are not the word, the gospel, but confirm the word. I'll say it again: the miracle is not the word, the word is not the miracle, nor must the specific miracle be mentioned in that word. The miracle, whatever it may be, confirmed the word, whatever it may be. The transfiguration may not have been mentioned in prophecy, but so what? It was a miracle that confirmed prophecy to Peter.
I also pointed out that the "we" in the statement "we have the prophetic word confirmed," referred to Peter and those with him; the word was confirmed to them. Matthew states, Mat 17:1-2 "Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light." This is the event Peter refers to in 2 Pet 1:12-19. To which you replied, "Well, we all have the word confirmed don't we?" While that may be, and in an indirect way, that is not what Peter said, and so you are still mistaken about the matter. To get exactly what he said, we must read the context. To be sure you learn this, we'll quote the entire piece and pay attention to the pronouns:
2 Pet 1:12-19 "For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease. For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;"
So, the pronouns progress from I, to We, to You. Any of the "you" of Peter's audience was not on the mountain. The prophetic word was confirmed to Peter, James, and John, and this information Peter was sharing with his audience to strengthen their faith. He said, "we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed," therefore, in Peter's statement there are clearly two groups of people. There are the "we," Peter and those who were with him on the holy mountain, and the "you," the Christians to whom he wrote. Therefore, the Christians were to heed what was confirmed to Peter and those with him when Jesus was transfigured. Now, you may not like the distinction made between the two groups, but Peter's epistle made it. The testimony of the prophets as to Christ's deity was confirmed to Peter, James, and John by the event, which you, Joe, would do well to heed.
NEXT STOP: ACTS 2:39
The passage reads thus, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." You say that there are three groups here: "you" being the Jews, "your children" being the Gentiles, and--unknown to any through the many centuries the New Testament has been with us-- "all who are afar off" being the Iglesia Ni Cristo [INC]. And to prove the interpretation that "your children" means "spiritual children," i.e., the Gentiles, correct, you cited 1 Cor 4:15, "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
Everyone knows that in his statement and the immediate context Peter was not being figurative at all. Therefore, "to you and to your children" must not be figurative either. But if it is not, then "you and ... your children" must be the children of the Jews, i.e., Jews. But that won't do. We must make the literal figurative, and the figurative literal, if we are going to get that Bible to say what we want on this matter, right Joe? Well, the citing of 1 Cor 4:15 has no bearing whatsoever on Acts 2:39. That passage there cannot make Acts 2:39 or anything therein figurative, but I am going to use that very passage to teach you something.
Here is what you have done to a literal, historical narrative:
1) You began the verse with a literal interpretation of the "you" being the Jews. Well, Joe, are you sure it is not a spiritual, figurative "you"? Maybe "you" does not really mean "you." Maybe there is another passage in some other epistle we could find to make "you" not mean "you." Or, maybe I could just say it's a spiritual "you" and that would be enough. But if not, I could claim inspiration and that would be enough. But if not, I could resort to what you said, "Well, if you don't want to believe it, that's your option." Then I would not have to deal with the matter at all, just like you.
2) Then, in the middle of the sentence which you began as literal, you switch and make "your children" figurative. Why, "you" meant "you," but "your children" did not mean "your children." Tell us, Joe, by what rule of interpretation did you come up with this trick?
3) Then, last but not least, Joe goes back to the literal and "all who are afar off" really means "all who are afar off." What rule did you use, Joe? Without a rule we can come up with nine different combinations of literal and figurative in these twelve words containing your imagined three groups, "you and to your children, and to all who are afar off." In a string of only twelve words Joe proceeds from literal, on to the figurative, then meets himself as he comes back to the literal. Such is laughable.
For vividness, let's state the verse as you interpreted it:
"For the promise is to you [literal group one] and to your children, [figurative group two] and to all who are afar off [literal group three, later and far away in the Philippines], as many as the Lord our God will call."
Let me cite you a rule that you and everyone else follows every day. I'm no authority on hermeneutics (the science of interpretation), but I know some folks who are. Let us hear what D. R. Dungan states in his popular, standard text book on hermeneutics:
"SEC. 50. RULES BY WHICH THE MEANING OF WORDS SHALL BE ASCERTAINED.
Rule 1. All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the context forbids.--Figures are the exception, literal language the rule; hence we are not to regard anything as figurative until we fell compelled to do so by the evident import of the passage. And even here great caution should be observed. We are very apt to regard contexts as teaching some theory which we have in our minds. And having so determined, anything to the contrary will be regarded as a mistaken interpretation; hence, if the literal meaning of the words shall be found to oppose our speculations, we are ready to give to the words in question some figurative import that will better agree with our preconceived opinions. Let us be sure that the meaning of the author has demanded that the language be regarded in a figurative sense, and that it is not our theory which has made the necessity." (3)
Wow! He almost called you by name, didn't he Joe?! Did you notice the number of this rule? It is number ONE.
So, Joe, the question comes to you: What in Acts 2:39 forbids us from taking the meaning to be literal throughout? Literal is the rule, so where is the figurative exception demanded? The best Joe could do when I challenged him on this point, was to say, "Well, you can believe that if you want to, it is your option," meaning that it was my option to think "your children" was literally future generations of Jews and "afar off" literally meant the Gentiles. With Joe, hermeneutics is not a science at all but an "option" arising from speculation and decided by whim. Yet, Joe was in the affirmative stating that "afar off" refers to a third group. If Joe could find a reason why the statement "your children" must be figurative, he would, but he can't, so he doesn't, and therefore he's left simply affirming and affirming louder and louder, but never giving any proof. So, Joe has no answer, we're just supposed to believe him because he says so. It is blatantly obvious that you are very apt to regard contexts as teaching some theory which you have in your mind. The Bible says what we want it to say. Why? We say so. Anything can be said and proved simply by saying, "Well, if you don't believe it, that's your option." Joe does not understand that his exegesis is really eis-egesis.
Here is an example of an exception to teach you when the figurative is meant. Luke 13:32 "And He said to them, 'Go, tell that fox, "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."'" Herod was not really a fox, was he? No, he was a man, so the context forbids the literal else Jesus would be uttering absurdities.
Tell me Joe, when you look in a telephone directory, how do you know which names and numbers are figurative and which are literal? If you take them to be all literal, can you tell me why? There must be some rule operating in your mind for you to be taking them as literal and not figurative. Do you know what it is? Surely you don't flip a coin, do you? Could it be the rule stated above that, "All words are to be understood in their literal sense"?
Ah yes, there was 1 Co 4:15. Well the rule was that the context must provide the exception, but 1 Co 4:15 is not the context. It is not even the same book. But wait! Maybe this verse can teach you again just like Luke 13:32. Let us begin by citing the entire context: 1 Cor 4:14-17 "I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church." Did they literally have "ten thousand instructors"? Impossible, therefore Paul was speaking figuratively. Was Paul really their literal, biological father since he said, "I have begotten you"? Again, impossible and no. He explained the begetting as "through the gospel" referring to their new, spiritual birth. And Timothy, was he literally Paul's biological son? No, for Paul picked him up at Lystra where Timothy was referred to as "a certain disciple" whose mother was a Jew and father a Greek. (Acts 16:1) Paul certainly was not literally Timothy's Greek biological father, but he was his father in some figurative sense, i.e., he apparently also begat Timothy by teaching him the gospel. Paul often referred to Timothy as his son. (1Ti.1:2, 18; 2Ti.1:2; 2:1; Tit.1:4 and so Titus) There you have it. Not only did the immediate context of 1 Co 4:15 demand that statements be figurative, but even the remote context demanded the same.
Dungan gives this as well:
"SEC. 51. HOW CAN WE KNOW FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE?
Rule 1. The sense of the context will indicate it.
Rule 2. A word or sentence is figurative when the literal meaning involves an impossibility. [Jer.1:18; Psa.18:2; Mat.8:22; Rev.6:13; Mat.26:26-28]
Rule 3. The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another. [Psa.49:10; 73:27; 145:20; Ecc.7:15; Isa.57:1; 1Co.15:22; 2Pe.2:9; Mat.25:46; Joh.11:25, 26]
Rule 4. By the resemblance of things compared.
Rule 5. By the use of the facts of history.
Rule 6. Any inspired interpretation or application of the language.
Rule 7. We must be careful not to demand too many points of analogy.
Rule 8. Figures are not always used with the same meaning.
Rule 9. Parables may explain parables.
Rule 10. The type and the antitype are frequently both in view at the same time." (4)
Where does the "sense of the context .... indicate" that there are three groups and that "you" is literal, "your children" figurative, and "afar off" literal?
Let us hear the pertinent comments of another student of hermeneutics on this matter of literal and figurative:
"It is quite common to find interpretations that mistake the literal for the figurative, or vice versa. The theology of some cults depends on such misreadings. James W. Sire points out that Christian Science offers figurative interpretations of scores of biblical words, without offering exegetical justification ....; and Mormonism offers a literal interpretation of many apparently figurative uses of words .... But what are the controlling principles for determining figurative/literal distinctions? A good place to begin such study is G. B. Caird's book; but in any case the problem offers another fertile field for fallacies of exegesis." (5)
Did he say what I think he said? Did he use the "C" word? Did he say, "cult"? Did he say the "theology of some cults depends on such misreadings"? Yes, he did, and this is my constant observation of any cult.
And so the question is repeated and I expect an answer: what in Acts 2:39 forbids us from taking the meaning to be literal throughout? Literal is the rule, so where is the figurative exception demanded? The truth is, you have no rule. You have no exception demanded. You have been simply trained to think and say this. The truth is, Joe and INC know and admit that the "you" refers to the Jews and this is their "first group." But "your children" presents for them a problem. The children, of course, have to be Jews just like there parents. But that would not allow INC's theory to work. So, the "exception demanded" is nothing more than a fabrication in INC's mind. It is nothing more than a reading into the scripture what is not there to get what they want, rather than reading to get out what is in there to get what God wants.
But before we leave this point, we must state why Joe and his Administration must make "your children" figurative. Why, we have to have authority for a third group, right? It's not there, but we'll cram it in there anyway regardless of what the Bible says and regardless of any usual common sense. Everybody has always known that "you and to your children" referred to the Jews, and that those "afar off" were the Gentiles just like in several other passages (to be noticed shortly). But to get three groups, Iglesia must pervert "your children" and then pervert "afar off," for we must make room for more groups, right? Joe has to split the first group to get two groups, leave group one part one literal, make group one part two figurative, the Gentiles, then make the second group really a third group and change them from the Gentiles in general to his church. Whew! What a feat! Now having done all that to the verse, Joe and INC have room to cram in a third group into the expression "afar off," and voila, its Iglesia Ni Cristo! What a disaster! And this is the exegesis and logic of an inspired man? It is as I have always said about theorists such as yourself, that, purely from capriciousness, purely for an agenda's sake, the figurative becomes literal, the literal figurative, distinctions are made where the Bible makes none, distinctions ignored when there, equal things become unequal and vice versa, lexicons misused, passages incorrectly quoted, translations faulty, nothing means what it says, etc., etc., etc., until, finally, you have made the Bible say what you want. And what is your proof? Why, it is a mere claim to infallibility, a mere claim to inspiration, just like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Boston Church of Christ, and a host of others. And what is the proof of inspiration? ZERO. Just loud claims. There is plenty of proof, however, that you are not inspired. More on that later.
Joe stressed that "afar off" had the sense of "time and distance." Then he conveniently appropriated that passage to Iglesia Ni Cristo and the Philippines. Why not Nebraska? (Remember that state, Joe?) How far does one have to be from Jerusalem to be "afar off"? In what direction? But of course, from the viewpoint of Jerusalem or any place else, any where else in the world would satisfy that expression. (I will deal with your "Far East" game later.) What if we let the Bible define the phrase?
The exact phrase, "afar off," occurs 48 (6) times in the English King James version. The phrase is from the Greek original pa/sin toi/j eivj makra,n which, literally rendered by Mr. Thomas Newberry is, "to all those at a distance." Here is what the Lexicographers say the word means:
Thayer "3112 makran {mak-ran'} feminine accusative case singular of 3117 (3598 being implied); TDNT - 4:372,549; adv 1) far, a great way 2) far hence" (7) In my unabridged Thayer, it reads, "those that are afar off, the inhabitants of remote regions, i.e., the Gentiles, Acts ii. 39, cf. Is. ii. 2 sqq.; Zech. vi. 15."
Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (henceforth referred to as, BAG) "as adv. be far away .... those who are far away of Gentiles (in contrast to the Jews) Eph 2:17 .... of time .... Ac 2:39 prob. refers to future generations .... But the spatial interpr. is also poss." (8) Ah ha! Joe has his "time and distance"! But wait a minute, is it time or distance? The lexicographers said, expanding their abbreviations, "the spatial interpretation is also possible." What are they saying? That Acts 2:39 may not be referring to time, but to distance. But whether time or distance, it is not a specific place, the Philippines.
G. Abbott-Smith says the same, "1. of space and time, long 2. Of distance, far, far distant" (9)
United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, "adv. far, far off, at some distance; .... far away (Ac 2:39)" (10)
Analytical Greek Lexicon, "makra,n, adv. (acc. fem. of makro'',j) far, far off, at a distance, far distant, Mat. 8.30; Mar. 12.34, et al.; met. oi` makra,n , remote, alien, Ep. 2.13, 17; so eivj makra,n, Ac. 2.39." (11) What did he say? That it speaks metaphorically of being remote, alien.
Friberg "03279 makra,n (1) adv. (orig. an acc. of extent, w. o`do,n implied) lit. of extent of space far away, at a distance, far off (MT 8.30); fig. of separation fr. God (EP 2.13, 17); (2) improp. prep. w. gen. far away from (LU 7.6)
03280 makro,qen adv. expressing location from afar, from a distance, at a distance (LU 18.13); avpo. mÅ far away, from or at a distance (MK 11.13) .... 03284 makro,j( a,( o,n (1) of extension in time long, long lasting; neut. as adv. makra, long (MK 12.40); (2) of extension in space far off or away, distant (LU 15.13)." (12)
United Bible Society "03850 makra,n adv. far, far off, at some distance; eivj makra,n far away (Ac 2.39) .... 03851 makro,qen adv. far off, at a distance; avpo. makro,qen at a distance, from a distance, in the distance .... 03855 makro,j , a, , o,n long; distant far off" (13)
Robinson "Act 2:39 - The promise (h` epaggelia). The promise made by Jesus (1:4) and foretold by Joel (verse 18). To you (u`min). You Jews. To your descendants, sons and daughters of verse 17. To all that are afar off (pasin toij eij makran. The horizon widens and includes the Gentiles. Those "afar off" from the Jews were the heathen (Isa 49:1; 57:19; Eph 2:13,17). The rabbis so used it. Shall call (an proskaleshtai). First aorist middle subjunctive with an in an indefinite relative clause, a perfectly regular construction. The Lord God calls men of every nation anywhere whether Jews or Gentiles. It may be doubted how clearly Peter grasped the significance of these words for he will have trouble over this very matter on the housetop in Joppa and in Caesarea, but he will see before long the full sweep of the great truth that he here proclaims under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. It was a great moment that Peter here reaches." (14)
"Afar <1,,3112,makran> from makros, "far," Matt. 8:20 (AV, "a good way;" RV, "afar"), "a long way off," is used with eis, "unto," in Acts 2:39, "afar off." With the article, in Eph. 2:13,17, it signifies "the (ones) far off." See FAR and WAY. <2,,3113,makrothen> also from makros, signifies "afar off, from far," Matt. 26:58; 27:55, etc. It is used with apo, "from," in Mark 5:6; 14:54; 15:40, etc.; outside the Synoptists, three times, Rev. 18:10,15,17. <3,,4207,porrothen> "afar off," from porro, "at a distance, a great way off," is found in Luke 17:12 and Heb. 11:13.
Far <A-1,Adjective,3117,makros> is used (a) of space and time, "long," said of prayers (in some mss., Matt. 23:14), Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; (b) of distance, "far, far" distant, Luke 15:13; 19:12. See LONG. <B-1,Adverb,3112,makran> properly a feminine form of the adjective above, denotes "a long way, far," (a) literally, Matt. 8:30, RV, "afar off." Luke 7:6; 15:20, RV, "afar off;" John 21:8; Acts 17:27; 22:21; (b) metaphorically, "far (from the kingdom of God)," Mark 12:34; in spiritual darkness, Acts 2:39; Eph. 2:13,17. See AFAR. <B-2,Adverb,3113,makrothen> from "far" (akin to No. 1), Mark 8:3: see AFAR. <B-3,Adverb,4206,porro> is used (a) literally, Luke 14:32, "a great way off;" the comparative degree porroteron, "further," is used in Luke 24:28; (b) metaphorically, of the heart in separation from God, Matt. 15;8; Mark 7:6. See FURTHER, WAY. Cp. porrothen, "afar off;" see AFAR." (15)
Well now, we have before us citations from several standard works (16), and not a single one noted that "afar off" meant Nebraska or the Philippines. Rather, they are nearly unanimous in saying that, in Acts 2:39, it refers to the Gentiles, but there are some who think it may refer to the Jews who lived in foreign lands (Diaspora). But NOBODY says it speaks of a third group, in a specific place or time, e.g., the Philippines early 1900's. Why? Because there is none. This is where Iglesia has to break every rule of interpretation to get the Bible authority for their existence they so desperately need. Never mind truth, just set it aside till they get their way and control. Never mind that Jesus said "I will build my church," they are going to build theirs notwithstanding.
Again, how far does one have to be from Jerusalem to be "afar off" in distance? How many years after 30AD must one be to be "far off" in time? Notice how "afar" or near these are:
Matthew 8:30 (KJV) "And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding." How far? Not so far away that they could not be seen.
Luke 15:20 (KJV) "And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." How far? He was "a great way off" but his father was able to see him. Not so far that his dad could not run to him.
Luke 18:13 (KJV) "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." The publican and Pharisee had gone "into the temple" (v 10), but the publican was said to be "standing afar off." Therefore, "far" isn't very far many times.
Here are passages where the English has far, away, afar, etc., and where the translators of the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures, chose the word makra,n, the same word found in the Greek of Acts 2:39, to translate the Hebrew word. This will help us to see just how near or far "far" was to those whose language was the Greek of Acts 2:39:
Gen 44:4 KJV "And when they were gone out of the city, and not yet far off [LXX, makra,n], Joseph said unto his steward, Up, follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good?" Here they were out of the city, but not far. How far were they?
Exo 8:28 KJV "And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to the LORD your God in the wilderness; only ye shall not go very far away [LXX, makra,n]: entreat for me." So, Pharaoh did not want them so far away that they would be out of his reach.
Exo 33:7 KJV "And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off [LXX, makra,n] from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the LORD went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp." So the word did not necessarily mean so "far off" that they could not walk (or swim) there. The tabernacle was outside the camp, within walking distance, yet said to be makra,n, afar off, the very word of Acts 2:39.
Num 9:10 KJV, "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off [LXX, makra,n], yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD." In this place, it refers to a journey of any length.
Deu 13:7 KJV, "Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off [LXX, makra,n] from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;" Here, "far off" could be one end of the earth or the other.
2 Sam 7:19 KJV, "And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord GOD; but thou hast spoken also of thy servant's house for a great while to come. And is this the manner of man, O Lord GOD?"
This is where BAG notes that the sense of the word refers to "time," as the translators have so rendered, "a great while to come." But what of it? The lexicographer says the sense in Acts 2:39 is that of "time" and cites 2 Sam 7:19, but still goes on to say, "the spatial interpretation is also possible." Again, you still don't have, even with your imagined help of this lexicon, three groups. There are only two, and possibly only one. This is where you, like other theorists, play games with lexicons. There are only the Jews and Gentiles, or possibly only the Jews. Whether time or distance, there is still no more than two groups. The New Testament consistently speaks of two groups, Jew and Gentile, and both are saved in the same way. There is no third group. Too bad. (For every occurrence of makra,n in the LXX, see footnote. (17)) "Far off," in its literal sense, could be within walking distance or to the end of the earth in any direction. But, metaphorically, it referred to the Gentiles. There is not one single instance of it referring to the Philippines, much less the Iglesia, in either the Greek Old Testament or Greek New Testament. (18) Nope, not a single verse referring to the Philippines or the Far East. Iglessia ni Cristo can't be the church Christ established, for the "time and distance" are all wrong. Christ's church was established 30AD, Felix Manalo's in the early 1900's. That's too much time. Christ's church was established in Jerusalem. Manalo's in the Philippines. That's too much distance.
Many of the lexicographers tie Acts 2:39 to Ephesians 2:13, 17. This is what I pointed you to in our meeting, Joe.
One must read the epistle to the Ephesians from the beginning to keep clear in the mind who the apostle speaks of. (Joe does not like us reading to find these things out, but we will read anyway.) Read Eph 1:1-12 and note carefully the "us" and "we," i.e., the Jews. Then, in 1:12, 13 there is a marked shift from "we" to "you," where he says, "we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted ..." Who is "you"? Read all the way through to 2:11 where you will see "Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles" Who are they? the Gentiles!
Here is Eph. 2:11-22 in full (pay attention):
Eph 2:11-22 NKJV "Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh; who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands; that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."
So, to Paul's Jewish mind, those "far off" were the Gentiles. So, to Peter's Jewish mind in Acts 2:39 those "far off" are also the Gentiles. Joe makes a big deal about "three groups," but there are only two here just as in Acts 2:39. And what does he say of these "two groups" in the church? Well, there were fleshly distinctions, "Uncircumcision" and "Circumcision," but of those two he said that in Christ, which is in the church, Jesus, "made both one." So, Joe's three groups are shrinking. First, an imagined three, then two, then one. How many groups in Christ? Jesus "create[d] in Himself one new man from the two." How many? One. From how many? Two. Two become one. Jesus "reconcile[d] them both to God in one body." How many? One. Who did Jesus preach to? "He came and preached peace to you who were afar off [who according to Paul in v 11 were Gentiles] and to those who were near [which were the Jews of 1:3-12]." Who had access? Paul said, "we both." Who? The Jew and Gentile. Paul never said, "we three." Iglesia Ni Cristo stresses the importance of the prophecies. Well, what did Paul here say of the prophets? That these two groups are "members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets." So, two groups, Jew and Gentile, were built into one household, one temple, one building, with Christ as the cornerstone and the "apostles and prophets" the foundation. The two groups are "joined" into one. Where is the third group? They're not there. There is no third group built on either what an apostle said or what a prophet said. No authority for a third group. INC stresses the importance of prophecy, therefore INC must not be very important for their third group, which they say they are, is not in this building which rests on the foundation of the prophets and therefore have no authority from prophecy to exist.
It is appropriate to notice that after Paul spelled these things out he made application. In chapter four is his exhortation to maintain what was accomplished by Christ, i.e., the joining of the two groups into one. He said, "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." According to the one calling whereby they were called, and they were called by the one gospel, there is only one group and one doctrine, which Paul called, "one body," not two or three, and "one faith," not one now and another later, not one for Jews, one for Gentiles, one for Iglesia Ni Cristo. Nope, just one and they were to endeavor to keep to that one "unity in the Spirit."
It is also appropriate to notice some things in chapter three. Paul wrote this letter about 62AD, about 32 years after the first and "only true church" was established, after his three journeys, after his arrest in Jerusalem and subsequent voyage to Rome, where he now sat a prisoner. In chapter three he mentions a "mystery" which he also mentioned in chapter one. He said there, ".... having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ ...." (1:9, 10) What was the will of God? That "all things" be "gather[ed] together in one." What were these things? Could it be the Jew and Gentile? Yep. Going back to chapter three, Paul said, "by revelation He made known to me the mystery .... which, when you, read you may understand my knowledge in the mystery ...." (We'll speak more of reading and understanding later.) What is the mystery? It is as stated in 1:10, the gathering together of all things in one; not three groups, just one in Christ. The gathering was accomplished already in the first century. Therefore, the two became one long ago and that is how it was to stay.
But is it OK to have a third group now? No, for when the church was one, after Christ had done the work of making the two one, Paul said, "that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." But INC does not preach the same thing Paul did. To the Philippians he wrote, "Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel ...." (1:27) While there was one church, one group, he said they were to stand in that which was one, "one spirit," "one mind," and one gospel he called, "the faith." So, when there was one faith and one body, no other bodies or divisions were allowed; no other faiths or doctrines allowed. Jude said it this way, "I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (v 3) There was one faith "once for all delivered to the saints" which means there could not be and would not be another one delivered in the future. What if any should change this already-delivered doctrine? "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." 2 John 1:9 NKJV
After Paul established churches in Galatia, he wrote them and said, "if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8, 9) There is no being on earth or in heaven not included in the terms, we, angel, and anyone. Any other gospel means any other. (If you don't believe this, Joe, that is your option.) INC has "another gospel" and so, according to the inspired apostle, are accursed.
"Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov 30:6 NKJV
READER CANNOT UNDERSTAND
INC doctrine is that one who reads cannot understand what he reads without the inspired preaching of an INC preacher. I pointed Joe to Ephesians 3:4 ".... when you read, you may understand ...." To which he replied that they were already Christians and so could understand. Then he pointed out that the eunuch in Acts 8 could not understand without the inspired Philip to teach him. But maybe Joe has assumed too much, trying to prove too much, and ending up proving too little.
The argument is that the Ephesians could understand because they were already Christians, already having the Spirit. Well, if that's the case then they must have some miraculous gift from the Spirit to understand, and they must all have it alike. If any do not have it, then they are like me, admittedly lacking any miraculous gift. Well, what do we find at the Corinthian church? Hear Paul ask rhetorical questions to which the answer is, "No":
"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" (1 Cor 12:29-30 NKJV)
These are rhetorical questions with the negative answer implied. Here, for the sake of vividness, is the verse with the answers inserted:
"Are all apostles? [No] Are all prophets? [No] Are all teachers? [No] Are all workers of miracles? [No] Do all have gifts of healings? [No] Do all speak with tongues? [No] Do all interpret? [No]"
Well, Joe, it would appear that even if anybody had a miraculous gift allowing them to understand what Paul wrote, they all did not. But Paul included all in the statement, ".... when you read, you may understand ...." Now don't try to make distinctions between Corinth and Ephesus, for he also said to the Corinthians, "we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand." (1 Cor 1:13) Don't try to make distinctions, for he told the Christians at Colossae, "Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." So, they were to share epistles and read them. They were expected to understand. Even if there was your gift of understanding as you supposed, they all would not have had it, but all were expected to read and understand.
And to the Thessalonians he wrote similarly, "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren. (1 Thess 5:27)"
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for not understanding what they read. He said, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" (Matthew 12:3-5; see also 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31) Well, Joe, who was the inspired preacher who was supposed to set these Pharisees straight about David's conduct and that of the priests? According to Joe's theory one cannot understand anything they read without an INC's inspired minister. Well, how then could Jesus hold these people culpable for not understanding? No, the scriptures were given to be understood--read and understood. Further, Joe's argument would require that inspired men be on the earth since the beginning, but they manifestly were not. Remember, the Old Testament scriptures were given centuries before the Spirit being given in Acts 2, the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection. So, Joe's argument that he thinks proves much, proves too little. But wait, there is more.
Joe cites as proof the Eunuch's not understanding in Acts 8. The Philip of this chapter is not the apostle Philip, but "Philip the evangelist." (Acts 6:5, 6; 8:1; 21:8) Here is the text cited as proof of Joe's claim:
(Acts 8:26-35 NKJV) "Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, 'Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.' This is desert. So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go near and overtake this chariot.' So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?' And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. The place in the Scripture which he read was this: 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before its shearer is silent, So He opened not His mouth. In His humiliation His justice was taken away, And who will declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth.' So the eunuch answered Philip and said, 'I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?' Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him."
From this text Joe argues that the eunuch did not understand what he read, but needed the inspired Philip with him. However, what proves too much, often proves too little. Remember that Joe's argument is that a person cannot understanding anything without the guidance of an inspired preacher (like Joe). But what does the text prove? It only proves that the eunuch did not understand one specific thing, not that he did not understand everything. What was that one stated thing he did not understand? He did not understand the prophet Isaiah when the he spoke of one being "led as a sheep to the slaughter." He did not know if the prophet meant himself or some other man. Hear the question of the eunuch, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?" So there was a specific question which the eunuch needed guidance on. But Joe's proposition is a universal one which he cannot sustain, namely, that nobody can understand anything without INC. I showed above from Jesus' statement that the Pharisees were expected to understand the scriptures on their own.
By the way, what was the eunuch doing in Jerusalem? In Acts 8:27 we see that he "had come to Jerusalem to worship." I guess he always attended worship where he did not understand a single thing, right Joe?
I pointed out Romans 10:17 in which Paul stated, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." But Joe pointed out that the hearing comes from the inspired preacher. But I replied that, no, hearing comes by the word of God. Joe would not read all the verse, just the first part, and whenever I stated the second part, "and hearing by the word of God," Joe just talked louder, and louder trying to drown out the word of God. Nobody in that "study" had a Bible. Is that because they are not allowed to? Why did you not want them to hear the second part of that verse? Now, "hearing" is "by the word of God." Therefore, when I read, I hear, and "faith comes by hearing," therefore, Joe is not needed, nor any of INC.
But a subtle point may be overlooked here. It is a point I made to Joe, which, as all other points were, ignored. Remember, Joe's proposition is that one cannot understand without the inspired preacher. But when one reads, he is hearing the inspired preacher, the real ones of the New Testament. This is why Joe objected so vehemently to my citing, "and hearing by the word of God." When we read, we hear the inspired men and have their guidance. So, Joe tried to prove too much, but has proved too little.
Also, Joe said that when the apostles were teaching the non-Christian, there was the presence of the gospel and the "Holy Spirit working in the background." Really? Prove it. I say the Spirit was not working in the background, but working directly because it was His word being preached; He was working directly through His word. To point out Joe's lack of support for such a statement is enough to show it false. This I did in our encounter on March 16. Did anybody notice Joe had no support for his argument?
Joe pointed me to Ephesians 1:13 to prove his point that one has to have the "Spirit working in the background" along with the preacher in order to understand. The mention of the Holy Spirit at the end of v 13 was Joe's proof that the hearer had the Spirit when it says, "sealed with the Holy Spirit." Too bad nobody had their Bibles out to see any passage that Joe misquoted and took out of context. But here is what Paul said, and Joe, as I tried to get you to do in our "study," try to pay attention to the order of events: "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise ...."
Here is the order of events:
1) they heard
2) they trusted, believed
3) they were sealed
You appealed to the mention of the Spirit as the proof that there was the "Spirit working in the background" to aid these people, these Gentiles, to understand. But the sealing came after the believing, and the believing came after the hearing. Therefore, the understanding preceded the sealing, the understanding came before the Spirit. The order in the New Testament is always: hearing, believing, obeying, salvation. Hear this simple sentence which states this order, "And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8b) I am glad that you took me to this verse in Ephesians, for it proves the very thing I said, that one can understand the word without miraculous aid from the Spirit. These people understood. When I pointed this out to you, you shifted gears and tried to make the Spirit have something to do with the Preacher. But the Spirit here had nothing to do with the Preacher, it had to do with the Gentile believer, for Paul said, "after you heard the word .... having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit" When did the sealing come? After hearing, after believing. So, the Spirit had to do with the believer, and that after believing, so there was no miraculous assistance to understand; no "working in the background." We are told in Acts 19:1-6 that about twelve Ephesians received the Spirit after being baptized. So, the order there again is: hearing, believing, baptism, Spirit. Nope, no "Spirit working in the background" on these Ephesians, just Paul preaching the Spirit's doctrine. Are you seeing the light yet? Did you know, Joe, that I am a messenger of God to help you see the light?
Somewhere about this time, you appealed to Acts 10 and the Holy Spirit's falling on the household of Cornelius as proof that they were getting Divine, miraculous aid in order to understand what Peter was saying. Once again, your argument to prove much will prove too little. I encourage you Joe, if you never have, and any reader of this letter, to carefully read Acts 10:1-11:18.
We are introduced to an excellent man in Caesarea, Cornelius. While praying he sees an angel which directs him to send for Peter in Joppa. This he does. Meanwhile, Peter in Joppa has a vision of unclean animals and hears a voice saying, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." He sees the vision three times. Then the ambassadors from Cornelius arrive from Caesarea and the Spirit tells Peter to join these men. Peter complied and lodged them. The next day, Peter, six other Jewish Christians, and those from Cornelius' house who came to fetch Peter, left for Cornelius' house. Cornelius was an uncircumcised Gentile; not a Christian. Peter begins to speak the gospel when all of a sudden the Holy Spirit fell on the uncircumcised Gentiles and they began to speak with tongues. (19)
Now then, why was the Spirit given to these? Joe cited the chapter to support his argument that the hearers needed miraculous aid from the Spirit to understand the gospel. And if one does not have their Bible open, if one has never studied Acts 10 and 11, Joe might sound right. But he is manifestly dead wrong. The events of those few days were meant to get the point across to Peter and the other Jewish Christians with him that it was time to baptize the uncircumcised as well. What had happened? Cornelius saw an angel. Peter saw a vision--three times even! The Spirit spoke to Peter, "go with them, doubting nothing." When Peter arrived at the house of Cornelius, he got an explanation as to why he was sent for. What did this all mean? Peter figured it out and said, "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." (10:34, 35) (This passage is going to come back to haunt Joe again because I'll use it as well as others to show that Felix Manalo could not be inspired; could not be God's messenger.) Now, Peter had it figured out, but if there was any vestige of doubt in anybody's mind about eating with uncircumcised Gentiles and baptizing them, it was about to be removed. How was any doubt removed? By the Spirit falling on them! The Spirit was given them, not to aid their understanding, but to show that God had also granted them "repentance to life" just as He had the Jews. This is evident from the words of Peter, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Well, could anyone so forbid? Of course not, for God had just manifestly demonstrated that the uncircumcised were to be baptized. Therefore, no objections being made, Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
Now, when Peter got back to Jerusalem, Jews complained that Peter had gone to uncircumcised men and had eaten with them. How did Peter respond? He simply recounted what happened. He had seen a vision, heard a voice, obeyed a command of the Spirit, and when he began to preach to the uncircumcised the Spirit fell on them. Also, there were the six witnesses. Simply recounting the events caused Peter's audience to learn what he learned, namely, that "God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life." (11:18) How could he withstand God? He could not, and that was his point to those complaining about his eating with uncircumcised men. It was his point that his being at the house of the uncircumcised was God's will. And here's that second group again, Joe, being joined to that first group and becoming one group just like Paul said in Ephesians and just like Peter had said in Acts 2:39. Are you understanding yet?
Wait, there's more here. Many folks make the mistake you make Joe in assuming that since the miraculous was given before baptism, that such is always the case. But we must remember that the Spirit was given to show the Gentiles were to be baptized as well as Jews and need not be circumcised. This is what Peter would later say in Jerusalem with the words, "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:7-9) See, Joe, I was right about the reason for the giving of the Spirit and you were wrong. Again, what was the purpose of the Spirit being poured out on the Gentiles? The whole event at Cornelius's house was not to show that they were saved before baptism, nor was it to show what Joe claims, namely, that they needed the Spirit to understand Peter, but that the Gentiles were to be baptized into Christ just like the Jews had been. Again, many assume that the Spirit must always work in a miraculous way in conversion. But wait, Peter said that when the Spirit fell on them, it reminded him of something. Here is what he said, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:15-17) If a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit was present in every case of conversion, how is it that this one could remind Peter of the first one? Thousands had been baptized since Acts 2, but this case reminded Peter of the beginning, i.e., the events of Acts 2:1-4. If you still don't see this Joe, look at Acts 8 where in vv 9-13 men, women, and even Simon were baptized, but the apostles Peter and John had to go down to Samaria because, though baptized, the Spirit "had fallen upon none of them." Here is what the text says, "Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." (8:14-17) How many days, Joe, did it take for the news of the baptisms of the people in Samaria to reach Jerusalem? Then, how many days elapsed before Peter and John departed Jerusalem for Samaria? Finally, how many days did it take them to reach Samaria? When you have the sum of days, you'll know how long the Christians were without the Spirit. Do you yet see the light?
Let's make another point on the benefit of simply reading the scriptures. Iglesia ni Cristo doctrine is, "This Church, which emphasizes the Bible as the sole basis of faith, is the Iglesia ni Cristo or the Church of Christ." (20) [sic.] (I think it would be fair to presume the tract cited would carry a claim of inspiration from INC.) What does "sole" mean? It means "adjective 1. Being the only one .... 2. Of or relating to only one individual or group; exclusive ...." (21) Therefore, if the Scriptures are the sole, the only, the exclusive, source of faith, then INC's help is not needed. I simply have to read. "Sole basis" excludes Joe, INC (and its organizational structure), and Felix. Scriptures are indeed the "sole" source of faith, and a person is manifestly saved by faith.
I ASKED JOE, "ARE YOU INSPIRED?" TO WHICH HE REPLIED
"Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-S-S-S-S-S-S!!!!!"
I put this question to Joe, and with all the showmanship he could muster, he responded in the affirmative. When I was a child and playing with the others, boasts were often made. The common challenge made to these boasts was, "Who says?" Well, Joe, who says? Why, Joe says, of course, and that is enough. Let me give you an affirmative universal proposition, Joe: as defined by scripture, there is not a single inspired man on this earth, nor has there been since the miraculous age of the first century ended. Now, if you want proof, I don't have to give it because you don't have to give it. I don't have to give it, I just have to make assertions, and just as in your case, that makes it so. (Of course, you could believe otherwise, that would be your "option.")
Nobody, not even Joe, is inspired because they say so. Nor are any inspired because they talk loud, or quote scripture, or stand with an open Bible. Joe, INC, and other authoritarian groups, operate with the same claim to inspiration, though none of them teach the same doctrine, nor can they teach their own consistently. So, if you question the leadership, which in INC's case is their "Administration," or in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses it is the Watchtower Society, or the Mormons and their organization, you are found to be questioning God. Mark my word, Joe will never prove to our senses, our eyes and ears, his inspiration, nor will any of INC's Administration.
A truly inspired man, the apostle John stated, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NKJV) Who is to be tested? The false prophet? But how do you know the false prophet unless you first test him? And what need would there be for a test if you knew beforehand who was the true prophet and who the false. Therefore, even true prophets fall under this test. So, why all the fuss from these authoritarian organizations like Joe's when they find themselves under scrutiny? According to John, all should be under scrutiny because there are "many false prophets."
Can Joe prove his inspiration? No. Will he? No. Can any of the Administration prove theirs? No. Will they? No. (Of course, there may be tricks played, loud talking, loud threats, etc.) Let us get on to a study of a chapter in the Bible which, in conjunction with Joe's claims, will prove he is not inspired.
"LOOK, ARE NOT ALL THESE WHO SPEAK GALILEANS?
AND HOW IS IT THAT WE HEAR,
EACH IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE IN WHICH WE WERE BORN?"
"WHATEVER COULD THIS MEAN?"
Acts 2:7-8, 12
Good questions. Let us read what the questions were about:
"When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:1-4 NKJV)
Notice that this miracle engaged the senses of these people, namely, their eyes and ears, for there was "sound" and something "appeared." These sights and sounds are referred to later when Peter makes his point as to the meaning of the event when he said, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." (v 33) The entire speech of Peter is hinged on what these sights and sounds meant. What did they mean? They meant that the Holy Spirit was given, and that meant Jesus was in heaven, and that meant Jesus was not dead, and that meant that all He ever claimed and promised was true; that His claimed deity was true.
Jesus had said to His apostles before He died, "But now I go away to Him who sent Me .... Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." After His resurrection, He said, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49) They had to stay in Jerusalem, because that is where the word was to go forth (22) (not from the Philippines, and remember the importance of prophecy!). Therefore, if the Spirit has come, Jesus is ascended.
When the Holy Spirit was given, there were sights and sounds. The twelve apostles "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." The audience was perplexed about this and said, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear each in our own language?" (Acts 2:4, 7, 8) They then went on to enumerate all the languages represented there that day? (Pentecost was one of the three Jewish holidays requiring the faithful to be in Jerusalem to celebrate it. Therefore, you had thousands and thousands of pilgrims in the city from all over the known world who spoke different languages.) How were these Galileans able to speak these languages, Joe? Joe knows, of course, that they were able to do so because "the Spirit gave them utterance." That is correct, and such is the proof that Joe is not inspired.
What were miracles for? They confirmed that what the speaker was saying was true; that the speaker was of God. Moses worked miracles, the apostles worked miracles, even the Lord Jesus Christ worked miracles, but Joe need not. In the wisdom of God, folks needed miracles to believe Moses. Folks needed miracles to believe the apostles. Folks needed miracles to believe Jesus. But, Joe, where are your miracles to confirm your word? Here are passages showing that all of these preachers had their words confirmed by God with miracles:
MOSES: Exo 4:4, 5 "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Reach out your hand and take it by the tail' (and he reached out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand), that they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you."
APOSTLES: Hebrews 2:3, 4 "how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?"
JESUS: Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know"
Nicodemus understood this as is evident from his statement, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." (John3:2) John the Baptist did no sign, but they believed because everything he said about Jesus was true; everything he said was confirmed by what Jesus said and did. John 10:41-42 "Then many came to Him and said, 'John performed no sign, but all the things that John spoke about this Man were true.' And many believed in Him there." Jesus also pointed out the purpose of the miracles, "But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish; the very works that I do; bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me." (John 5:36) Why did Jesus have a greater witness than John? Because He worked miracles, but John did not. Where are your works, Joe, to prove your inspiration? Are you greater than Jesus? Jesus needed works, but you don't? In Acts 13:4-12, we find Paul and Barnabas on the island of Cyprus preaching. There was a sorcerer there named Elymas who continually withstood the preachers till Paul had had enough and Elymas was struck blind. Well, Joe, I am here to withstand you and all of INC. Strike me blind! Or, does a worse fate await me?
When Joe learns a language, he has to go to school. But these truly inspired apostles did not. They did not attend a single course for a single hour. When Joe wants to research a variant reading in various manuscripts and versions, he has to go to Harvard to learn. Truly inspired men did not have to study. Just use all your inspiration, Joe, to correct all the variants and the scientific field of Textual Criticism will be a thing of the past. We won't need the Majority Text, the Received Text, the Nestle-Aland Text, the Westcott-Hort Text, Scrivener's, or the Stephanus 1550, for we'll have the final text, the Joe Text. Also, why not use your inspiration to give us error-free versions in all the languages of the earth? Such would be a great boon to all mankind.
Inspired apostles did not go to school to learn a language. This is exactly why the audience in Acts 2 was perplexed. How did those Galileans know the language of the Parthians having never studied it? How did they know the language of the Medes? of the Arabs? of the Asians? Well, Peter said they knew because, "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:32, 33) When Joe desires to know the correct reading of a text, he goes to school. When he wants to learn a language, he goes to school. Why? He is inspired, or so he says. But none of these Galileans had to go to Harvard like Joe. Joe is inspired, but made at least FOUR of the biggest blunders with regard to history that I have ever heard:
1) he claimed Alexander Campbell began what is commonly called the Restoration Movement,
2) he claimed the Catholic Church existed in the second century,
3) he claimed there was not a single faithful Christian in the second century, that apostasy was complete right down to the last individual,
4) he claimed he could prove there was not a single faithful Christian in the second century.
How could an inspired man make such blunders? Truly inspired men don't make blunders in the teaching of their doctrine. I openly declare that I am not inspired, but that I am quite fallible. But how is it that little fallible me is whipping you on every point and catching you at every mistake you make? And you make many.
How do I know there are no inspired men today? Well, every one I ever met who made the claim never offered proof, but more convincingly than that I have the testimony of scripture. Do you remember above our study of Acts 8? How that there were Christians who had not received the Spirit? You might want to notice that Philip the evangelist was performing miracles and signs. (Acts 8:6, 13) But Philip could not impart the miraculous to the Christians, why? Why did Peter and John have to go down there? There is a popular theory which states the miraculous was transmitted through the centuries to the present by people who, after having hands laid on them, in turn laid them on others. But the scriptures nowhere teach or support this theory in any way; it is pure speculation. This theory also contradicts Acts 8:18 and 1 Corinthians 13:8. Pay close attention to what Simon saw when the apostles Peter and John arrived: ".... Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given ...." (8:18) Simon had seen Philip the evangelist working miracles for days, but never saw him do what these two apostles could do. Therefore, the teaching of scripture is that there could be no more imparting of the miraculous after the death of the apostles. This was something only an apostle could do. Period.
Do historians know of the end of miracles? Philip Schaff, an eminent scholar in this field, knew. He opened his second volume:
"We now descend from the primitive apostolic church to the Graeco-Roman; from the scene of creation to the work of preservation; from the fountain of divine revelation to the stream of human development; from the inspirations of the apostles and prophets to the productions of enlightened but fallible teachers. The hand of God has drawn a bold line of demarcation between the century of miracles and the succeeding ages, to show, by the abrupt transition and the striking contrast, the difference between the work of God and the work of man, and to impress us the more deeply with the supernatural origin of Christianity and the incomparable value of the New Testament. There is no other transition in history so radical and sudden, and yet so silent and secret. The stream of divine life in its passage from the mountain of inspiration to the valley of tradition is for a short time lost to our view, and seems to run under ground." (23)
See, I'm no historian, but I'm not the straw dummy you tried to portray me as either. Straw men are easy to tear down. It makes you look big before the uninformed masses, doesn't it Joe?
When Moses came with a law from God, the miraculous accompanied his work. When Jesus and the apostles came with the gospel, the new covenant, the miraculous accompanied their work. Felix Manalo comes along, INC, and Joe, but there is nothing, just outlandish claims and assertions.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTED IN THE SECOND CENTURY
This, Joe said, is proven by having found the Greek adjective katholikos in a work of the second century. Did Joe provide us the reference so that we could see for ourselves? No. Because a writer, speaking in general terms of the universal [katholikos] church, Joe wants us to believe that the Catholic Church of today was that of the second century. How does he do it? He finds the word universal [katholikos]. This was Joe's way to prove there was not a single faithful Christian left in the second century. Yes, the New Testament speaks of a general apostasy that was to come (1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thess 2:2), but that does not mean it extended to each and every last person. But the reader needs to understand that it is INC doctrine that there was no true church until, you guessed it, his organization founded by Felix Manalo came along in the early 1900's. One could just as well argue that not one single Israelite obeyed the gospel because Paul said, in speaking of Israel, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel." (Romans 10:1, 16) Well, was Paul an Israelite? Yes. (Romans 11:1) Did he obey the gospel? Yes! We have to get the world void of Christians to pave the way for Felix Manalo's work, don't we Joe? Oh yes, here is another point I made to Joe which he could not answer. He was trying to say that there were no faithful men to teach other faithful men, and so in the second century there were no faithful Christians left. I pointed Joe to 2 Tim 2:2, "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." So, faithful Timothy could teach faithful men, and these faithful men could teach other faithful men. Therefore, the miraculous could not come through the centuries, but faithfulness could. Joe says "there can be no plant without a planter." Well, these faithful men were planters, and they were planting other planters. Further, when we simply read the scriptures, there is still a planter--the author of the letter--and behind him the Great Planter, the God of heaven.
Here is another blunder that Joe's group makes and others like it make. The theory basically is that the man at the top of the organization, or the founder, is God's inspired messenger to straighten out all the mistakes of others. The founder is the infallible inspired teacher to be heeded in all things. You can't understand scriptures without the guidance of the organization--nobody can. Of course, this begs the question: who guided Felix? Who baptized him? Who planted the planter? It's not enough to claim he is the fulfillment of prophecy, for all the common sense rules of interpretation are thrown out when it comes to the prophecies. Further, according to INC's own doctrine, when Felix studied his Bible, he could not understand because there was not a single inspired, faithful Christian to guide him. In other words, who taught the teacher? You can't have the Spirit coming to Felix to help him understand before he believes, for such never happened in the New Testament, except for the apostles and it was true only in their case, Acts 10 notwithstanding. If God were to pick Felix to receive the miraculous before Felix obeyed the gospel, then you have made God a respecter of persons, and He manifestly is not. (Acts 10:34; Deu 1:17; 2 Chron 19:7; Romans 2:11; Philippians 4:11; 1 Peter 1:17) So, INC ends up making the same mistakes they point out in others.
Joe also appealed to history to prove there were no faithful Christians in the second century, not a single one. I challenged him stating that the proof of such a position is beyond the ability of recorded history; that recorded history is all we have, but it cannot possibly record all. (cf. John 20:30; 21:25) What I was trying to say and am saying now is what another historian said in these words, ".... reconstruction can never fully tell the past as it was but must be partial, subject to error and human bias. A consensus about the past will emerge .... Though absolute truth about the past may elude the historian, he will, as far as his information permits, present truth about the past ...." (24) So, Joe, this is the limitation of history of which I was speaking. I'll say it again, your assertion that there was not a single faithful Christian in the second century is pure speculation on your part and quite not provable by history. However, since you say history does prove it, why don't you give us the proof? You make the assertion, you supply the proof.
"ALEXANDER CAMPBELL BEGAN THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT"
Joe built up a straw man here. He assumed I knew nothing of history because I neither said much nor boasted. I just pointed out, though, a big blunder on his part. Over and over he exhorted me to read my history. He knew all this about me having never met me. If I did not know my history, but Joe did, why was he making the blunders? He utters historical blunders then belittles my knowledge of history. He utters blunders then claims inspiration. If I knew so little, how is it I corrected him? When I pointed out Joe's blunder he began to backpedal and throw out other names connected with the Restoration Movement. But it was too late, he had made the inspired blunder. I had heard that people often made the mistake of stating that Alexander Campbell founded the Restoration Movement, but Joe was the first one I ever witnessed making the mistake. His inspiration must have been a bit rusty that afternoon.
Joe introduced another straw man here. He tried to assert that somehow I could not be a true, faithful Christian because I was under the influence of A. Campbell; that I was part of his Restoration Movement. But here he blundered again. I was baptized into Christ never having heard of, much less having read of, A. Campbell, just like the 3,000 in Acts 2. All I had heard was primarily Acts and the Epistles. I had read, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." So, I believed and was baptized. Joe had asked me what church I belonged to and I pointed him to Acts 2:47 "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." Joe ignored this and went gathering straw. You see, he had to get me out of Christ's church and into A. Campbell's church. I could do the same with Felix Manalo, the founder of INC. Let's see, did not Felix come under the influence of the Christian Missionary Society? The Christian Mission group of the Church of Christ? And would not that place him under the influence of A. Campbell? Did not A. Campbell preach baptism is immersion? Does not Iglesia ni Cristo immerse? According to Joe's logic(?), does that not make them a part of the Restoration Movement? Did he not come under the influence of the Seventh Day Adventists having joined them? Did he not leave the Adventists and close himself in for three days with his Bible and emerge to start a new church? Did he not know what Joe knows, namely, that he could not understand what he was reading for those three days? (He should have spent more than three days. He should have stayed till he learned better.) Did he not come to the United States in 1919 to study, to learn from, those apostate Protestants? Did he not enroll in the Pacific School of Religion in California? Was this not some five years after having been called by God to be His last messenger? There you go, Joe, you drug it out of me.
So, Joe is left with a claim, but no proof. I have made a claim, and offered the correct proof. I win. (Said tongue-in-cheek, of course. Recall that I asked in the beginning as did Paul, Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly ....")
"A DOCTRINE IS NOT OF GOD IF IT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ...."
PASUGO, Jan. 1976, p. 12
Well then, let's compare. (Joe likes "comparative studies," he should like this.)
|
Compare the Two to See Who is Who |
|
New Testament Church |
Iglesia Ni Cristo |
|
Christ is God |
Christ is NOT God |
|
Christ adds to church (25) |
Prospect allowed to join |
|
Founded in Jerusalem (26) |
Founded in Philippines |
|
Gospel for all nations (27) |
Ethnically based |
|
Founded 30 AD (28) |
Founded early 1900's |
|
Upon confession, baptized "same hour" (29) |
After "28 fundamental lessons" baptized |
|
No organization larger than local congregation (30) |
Has earthly headquarters, the "Administration" and "Central Office" |
|
Elders had oversight of one congregation (31) |
"Administration" has oversight of several congregations |
|
Only elders and deacons (32) |
ministers and Executive ministers |
|
Had no official name (33) (never capitalized) |
Has official name and is capitalized, "Iglesia ni Cristo" |
|
Encouraged to read and share epistles (34) |
Members are not allowed to have their own Bible |
|
Only has one sword, the word of God (35) |
Private army with full-battle gear |
|
To behave and obey the laws (36) |
Can kill for the sake of the "ORGANIZATION" |
|
No division allowed (37) |
"a third group" |
|
Possessed only gospel allowed (38) |
Has "another gospel" |
|
Miraculous, and so Inspiration, ended 1st century (39) |
Claims (but will not prove) Inspiration |
|
Jesus and Apostles did not lie |
Practices uninformed consent (40) |
|
Preached gospel to win converts (41) |
Boasts of membership numbers, houses of worship, tabernacles, universities, colleges, hospitals (42) |
|
No earthly head quarters |
Has "Central Office" |
|
Christ is head (43) |
"Executive Minister" |
Casual observer, are these two the same? No. So, what is the teaching of Iglesia Ni Cristo? "A DOCTRINE IS NOT OF GOD IF IT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ...." Therefore, the doctrine of Iglesia Ni Cristo is not of God. Let me make one more point here. Groups such as INC often overlook something that many fail to grasp. They preach they are the "true church." They use a Biblical name. So, by first appearances to the uninformed which they prey upon, it looks like they might be the true church indeed. But there are more marks of identification than simply a claim and a name, it is that of organization, practice, and time and place of establishment. Prophets said, and INC stresses the importance of prophecies, that the word would go forth from Jerusalem at the time that it did. Any church not founded in Jerusalem in 30AD, is not the true church. In the beginning, there was one and others were not allowed. The church of the New Testament had a recognizable organization to it, and the organization of INC is not its match as seen above.
Since Felix Manalo and Iglesia Ni Cristo and its preachers preach "another gospel," they fall under the same condemnation as people like Joseph Smith, Jr. That condemnation is from a truly inspired apostle of Christ, Paul, who said in the beginning:
".... but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:7b-9
Paul did not preach "a third group." Therefore, "a third group" would be "any other gospel .... than what we have preached to you." If it is not what was preached to them, the preacher is accursed. The "third group" theory was not preached to them. Therefore, those preaching this "third group" are accursed.
IGLESSIA NI CRISTO IS GOD'S CHURCH IN THESE LAST DAYS
So Joe says. But there was already a church in the "last days" of the first century. Joel predicted, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams...." (Acts 2:17) And Peter said in the verse just before, ".... this is what spoken by the prophet Joel ...." Well, the events of Acts 2 were what Joel was talking about. Joel said they were to happen in the "last days." Acts 2 concerns the establishment of the church Jesus promised. (44) Therefore, the establishment of Christ's church nearly two thousand years ago was "in the last days." Remember the importance of prophecy, Joe? Don't try to change what the prophet Joel and the apostle Peter said. The author of Hebrews also said that they were in the "last days" when he wrote, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son...." (Hebrews 1:1, 2a) When did Christ speak? "in these last days"
CAN YOU SAY, "ANACHRONISM"?
What is an anachronism? "a·nach·ro·nism (e-nàk¹re-nîz´em) noun 1. Representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than the chronological, proper, or historical order. 2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order: "He is interested in the spirit of the play, and he is not averse to throwing in an anachronism or two if he thinks it will help underscore a point" (Skylines). [French anachronisme, from New Latin anachronismus, from Late Greek anakhronismos, from anakronizesthai, to be an anachronism : Greek ana-, ana- + Greek khronizein, to take time (from khronos, time).]
-- a·nach´ro·nis¹tic or a·nach¹ro·nous (-nes) adjective
-- a·nach´ro·nis¹ti·cal·ly or a·nach¹ro·nous·ly adverb (45)
Some of, if not the, greatest anachronistic blunders ever made were committed countless times in the composition of the Book of Mormon. "About 1/8 of the Book of Mormon is copied from the King James Version of the Bible, yet it was written, if Mormonism be true, some 1,200 to 2,000 years before the King James translation was made! How come? Could it be that it was the only one that was available to Joseph Smith when he wrote The Book of Mormon?" (46)
In their tract, "Are You Truly Safe?" the Iglesia Ni Cristo makes this claim:
"The Iglesia ni Cristo is replete with various biblical testimonies that prove that it is the true Church of Christ today. As the Apostles in the first century held on to 'the sure word of prophecy' as a proof of their divine calling (II Pt. 1:10, 19-20), so does the Iglesia ni Cristo. It is testified to by biblical prophecies, such as those written in Isaiah 43:5-7; 46:11, John 10:16, and Revelation 7:2-3. These prove that it is indeed the true Church of Christ re-established in these last days." (47) [I dealt with II Pt. 1:10, 19-20 above.]
Shall we see? Here are the verses cited:
Isa 43:5-7 KJV Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
Isa 46:11 KJV Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
John 10:16 KJV And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Rev 7:2-3 KJV And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
There you have it. Here is the repleteness of the Bible on the matter. Here is the irrefutable proof that Iglesia ni Cristo is indeed the true Church of Christ re-established in these last days. Is it not obvious? What's that? Dear reader, what do you mean you do not see it? Do you not see the clear mention of the Philippines? Do you not see the date, 1914? Did you not see the phrase "Far East"?
The whole claim is ludicrous, but because it's made we have to go through the laborious process of examining it.
The key word in the verses, at least to INC, is "east." That, they say, is the word which points to the Philippines. Never mind all the other places of the east, this must be the Philippines. And it must be the early 1900's. It must be. Never mind the equal mention of the West. Never mind the equal mention of the South. Never mind the equal mention of the North. The prophet must be referring to the Philippines. The prophet must be referring to Filipinos. The "ravenous bird from the east" must be Felix Manalo, it must be. The historical facts notwithstanding, it could not possibly be Cyrus, the King of Persia and conqueror of Babylon, even though Babylon was "east" of Isaiah and notwithstanding the fact that the prophet had already named Cyrus and that he is also mentioned by others. (Isa 44:28; 45:1; Dan 1:21; 6:28; 10:1; Ezra 1:1, 2) Never mind any of this. And the "other sheep," why, they must be those of the Philippines. Never mind those uncircumcised Gentiles who obeyed the gospel in Acts 10. Never mind the countless number of Gentiles recorded in Acts as having obeyed the gospel after Acts 10. Never mind what the epistles of the New Testament have to say about the Gentiles' obedience to the gospel. These "other sheep" must be the Iglesia ni Cristo.
And these are the texts that "prove" it.
Who was gathered from the four directions? Of course, it was those scattered to the four directions, the captives of Israel. The prophet said, ".... thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west ...." Not Filipinos, but Israelites. Babylon in the East would conquer, destroy, and carry the Israelites away captive. But Cyrus from the East would conquer Babylon and allow, even assist, the Israelites in their return and rebuilding. But never mind history, never mind fact, it must be the Philippines and it must be Felix and it must be Iglessia ni Cristo.
INC hammers away at this point, that the church, their church, will come from the "far east." The East above is not far enough, so they make it the "Far East." But Isaiah did not say "far east." Here is their anachronism, their chronological blunder that ranks right up there with those made by Joseph Smith, Jr. in his Book of Mormon. We are expected to believe that our modern expression "far east" and the specific geographic location that the expression encompasses was all in the mind of prophet when he said, "east." Never mind that the phrase "Far East" is English and could only make sense to modern man with his maps and coordinate systems. Never mind the fact that the prophet Isaiah was writing in Hebrew some 1,650 years before the English language appears in its earliest form, and some 2,500 years before its present form, and never mind that there was no universally agreed upon prime meridian until 1844 by which any place could be called the "Far East."
Of course, Isaiah did not say, "far east," but what is it?
"Far East (fär) The countries and regions of eastern and southeast Asia, especially China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Mongolia. - Far´ East´ern adjective (48)"
"in the most restricted sense, region comprising the countries of E Asia, namely China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, and Taiwan, and the easternmost portion of Russian Siberia (see Russian Far East ). In a more extended sense, the term includes the countries of Southeast Asia , including the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Brunei, and Indonesia. Historically, it denotes those portions of the Asian continent and archipelagoes farthest from the 19th cent. W European maritime powers." (49)
What makes the Far East far east? Do we not need some reference points in place? Let's study for a moment coordinate systems:
"Latitude and Longitude, system of geometrical coordinates used in designating the location of places on the surface of the earth. (For the use of these terms in astronomy, see COORDINATE SYSTEM; ECLIPTIC.) Latitude, which gives the location of a place north or south of the equator, is expressed by angular measurements ranging from 0° at the equator to 90° at the poles. Longitude, the location of a place east or west of a north-south line called the prime meridian, is measured in angles ranging from 0° at the prime meridian to 180° at the International Date Line.
Midway between the poles, the equator, a great circle, divides the earth into northern and southern hemispheres. Parallel to the equator and north and south of it are a succession of imaginary circles that become smaller and smaller the closer they are to the poles. This series of east-west-running circles, known as the parallels of latitude, is crossed at right angles by a series of half-circles extending north and south from one pole to the other, called the meridians of longitude.
Although the equator was an obvious choice as the prime parallel, being the largest, no one meridian was uniquely qualified as prime. Until a single prime meridian could be agreed upon, each nation was free to choose its own, with the result that many 19th-century maps of the world lacked a standardized grid. The problem was resolved in 1884, when an international prime meridian, passing through London's Greenwich Observatory, was officially designated. A metallic marker there indicates its exact location." (50)
We are expected to believe that our modern day system of latitudinal and longitudinal lines was in place in Isaiah's day! That Isaiah's prime meridian was our prime meridian settled on in 1884, so that the Philippines, about 123 degrees east of this line, to his mind, were indeed "far east" of this imaginary, arbitrary line running north and south far to his west!! The area is called "far east" because it is "far east" of an imaginary longitudinal line which was not in place in Isaiah's day!!! Incredible!!! What happens when you go further east than the Far East? Well, you end up in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Go a little further and you cross the International Dateline at 180 degrees. At this point your no longer east, but west of the prime meridian. Go further and you end up in California, the west, where Felix Manalo went to school.
There you have it. This modern concept, expressed by this English phrase, "far east," of a specific geographic locale was the concept in Isaiah's mind when he wrote 2,700 years ago. Of course it was, and all the prophet's Hebrew speaking friends he hung out with knew at once that he was talking about "southeast Asia, especially China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Mongolia" and sometimes the Philippines which, to the contrary of INC doctrine, is not the geographical center of this area.
I said above that Isaiah did not say "far east," then exposed INC's anachronistic doctrine to show that Isaiah could not have referred to the "far east." INC tries hard to make Isaiah say "far east" any way. They say, "The prophecy stated that God's children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, p. 6). The Hebrew words behind "far" and "east" do not even appear in the same verse. INC will try to quote from Moffat's translation which has "far east," but there is no warrant for changing the word "east" to "far east." But even if "far east" appeared in the text, it can't be the Far East of today for it did not exist! The arbitrary longitudinal line of 0 degrees had not been set until 1844, so there was no reference point by which anyplace on earth could be called "the Far East."
Oh yes, and the "angel ascending from the east" in Revelation. Well now, that certainly is obvious proof; it is obviously Felix Manalo; as obvious as the nose on your face. So much for the Bible being replete.
Did you hear the story of the INC preacher preaching to the native American? After the sermon the preacher felt pretty good about the job he'd done and asked the native, "Well, what do you think?" The native, with contemplative look, paused for a moment then spoke, "Much wind! Sound of thunder!! -- but -- No rain!!!"
Those of INC are described by Jude's words, "They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots," and Peter's, "For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage."
From an academic standpoint, this is all laughable, as laughable as Mormon doctrine. From a spiritual standpoint, saddening. You know little about much, yet you are given much authority over people who are ignorant and whom you keep that way. The Mormons do it. The J. W.'s do it. The Boston Church of Christ does it. A host of others do it, have always done it, and always will. I have seen you and your Administration before and have dealt with you before, you are simply called by another name. I was asked if I'd like to attend a "Bible study." But of course, that's not what it was. Besides yourself, Joe, the only two people in that "Bible study" of March 16 who even had Bibles to investigate your ballyhoo were my wife and myself. No, I will not trust you or your Administration to word a logical and fair proposition for a debate. A proposition will be prepared according to the rules of logic in order that the debate represent fairly both sides.
I have done as Felix Manalo is said to have done. I have shut myself in with my Bible three days and here are the results. I pray I may lead you to repentance.
"But He answered and said, 'Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.'" (Mat 15:13-14 NKJV)
You lead those away who have no love for truth. There, as the scripture says, God sends them a delusion that they may believe a lie.
"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Th 2:11-12 NKJV)
Titus 2:13, "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ"
2 Pet 1:1 "Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"
1 John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."
John 1:1, 14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
Acts 20:28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (The INC's favorite translation of George Lamsa notwithstanding.)
May I be a prophet for just a short while? I predict that not one single point I have made in this letter will be squarely dealt with or conceded, but that Joe and his Administration will simply look for other ways to twist the scripture and break every rule of hermeneutics to get around my arguments. ".... some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16) Some things hard, not all things. Some things hard, but not impossible. But Joe and INC are sure to twist the easy to the hard, and they do indeed do so to their own destruction.
Let me sum up Joe's follies:
- His comments on 2 Peter were out of context and order
- Read into Acts 2:39 what was not there for no stated reason
- Mistaken on the work of the Holy Spirit and the purpose of the miraculous
- Mistaken on the order in conversion
- Mistaken on the source of faith and benefit of reading
- Made a plurality of historical blunders
- His universal propositions collapsed
- Failed to prove his inspiration; failed to confirm his word with signs, miracles, and wonders
- Mistaken about nature of Christ and God
- Anachronistic blunder concerning the Far East
He was wrong on every scripture he appealed to. Nothing meant what it said. Things were taken out of context. Orders were reversed. Literal was figurative, but the reason why never stated. He is adept at parroting INC doctrine, adept at twisting scripture, but shallow in knowledge of the same. All these mistakes committed by one man in one hour, and we are supposed to believe his unsupported claim to inspiration!
Finally, to sum up, I put to you these questions to which I expect answers:
1) How far in distance is far?
2) How far in time is far?
3) In what direction from Jerusalem is far?
4) What makes the Far East far east?
5) What is the Far East far east of?
6) When was the English phrase "Far East" first used?
7) What in Acts 2:39 forbids us from taking the meaning to be literal throughout?
8) If, Joe, you are inspired as you say, can you offer to us the proof? Can you, and will you, offer the proof to our senses, that of seeing and hearing, just like in Acts 2?
9) Since you are inspired, and have written me a letter dated March 22, 2002, may I consider that letter inspired just like the Christians did in the first century when they received a letter from the apostle Paul?
10) If the answer to the above question is, "Yes," may I share it with other Christians and churches along with your claim to inspiration, just like they did in the first century?
11) If the answer to the above question is, "Yes," would it not be proper for me to paste that letter into my Bible so that now I'll have 67 inspired books instead of 66?
12) If the answer to question 8 is, "No," tell me why.
13) If the books of the Bible have been kept, and the number of them fixed, owing to the belief that the authors were inspired of God, are we to hold your writings, and those of your Administration, to be on a par with the books of the Bible?
14) Where do the scriptures speak of the "Holy Spirit working in the background" while the apostle preached?
15) Where is the proof to your claim that the Catholic Church existed in the second century?
16) Where is the historical proof that there was not a single faithful Christian on the earth in the second century?
17) What is the exact date (day/month/year) of the death of the very last faithful Christian?
18) May I have more literature from your church? More tracts? Magazines? I truly appreciate what you sent so far.
19) Is it possible that you could be wrong on any Biblical subject?
I await your immediate, forthright answers.
Sincerely,
Patrick L. Kelly
3 Hermeneutics, the Science of Interpreting the Scriptures, D. R. Dungan, Gospel Light Publishing, p 184
4 Hermeneutics, the Science of Interpreting the Scriptures, D. R. Dungan, Gospel Light Publishing, p 11
5 Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson, Baker Book House Company, 1984, p. 143
6 Genesis 22:4; 37:18; Exodus 2:4; 20:18; 20:21; 24:1; 33:7; Numbers 9:10; 1 Samuel 26:13; 2 Kings 2:7; 4:25; Ezra 3:13; Nehemiah 12:43; Job 2:12; 36:25; 39:25, 29; Psalms 10:1; 38:11; 65:5; 138:6; 139:2; Isaiah 23:7; 59:14; 66:19; Jeremiah 23:23; 31:10; 46:27; 51:50; Micah 4:3; Matthew 26:58; 27:55; Mark 5:6; 11:13; 14:54; 15:40; Luke 16:23; 17:12; 18:13; 22:54; 23:49; Acts 2:39; Ephesians 2:17; Hebrews 11:13; 2 Peter 1:9; Revelation 18:10, 15, 17
7 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Abridged and Revised Thayer Lexicon) being C. G. Grimm (1861-1868; 1879) and C. L. W. Wilke (1851) Clavis Novi Testamenti Translated, Revised, and Enlarged, by Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., Hon. Litt.D., Professor of New Testament, Divinity School of Harvard University, 1889. Copyright © 1998 BibleWorks, LLC
8 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, The University of Chicago Press, 1957, pp. 488-9
9 A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, by G. Abbott-Smith, Charles Scribner's Sons, p. 276
10 A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, Prepared by Barclay M. Newman, Jr., United Bible Societies, London
11 The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Harper & Brothers, p. 268
12 Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament ANLEX Copyright (c) 1994 Timothy and Barbara Friberg. Copyright © 1998 BibleWorks, LLC
13 A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, prepared by Barclay M. Newman, Jr., Copyright (c) 1971 by the United Bible Societies (UBS) and 1993 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), Stuttgart. Copyright © 1998 BibleWorks, LLC
14 A T Robertson Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, 1934, published by the Broadman Press, Southern Baptist Sunday School Board
15 Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
16 But this scholarship the Iglesia Ni Cristo will conveniently set aside.
17 makra,n in the LXX: Gen. 44:4, Exod. 8:24, Exod. 33:7, Num. 9:10, Deut. 13:8, Deut. 14:24, Deut. 20:15, Deut. 30:11, Jos. 3:4, Jos. 3:16, Jos. 8:4, Jos. 9:22, Jda. 18:7, Jda. 18:9, Jda. 18:28, Jdg. 18:7, Jdg. 18:28, 2 Sam. 7:19, 2 Sam. 15:17, 1 Ki. 8:46, 2 Chr. 6:36, Ezr. 6:6, Neh. 4:13, Est. 9:20, 1 Ma. 8:4, 1 Ma. 8:12, Ps. 21:2, Ps. 64:6, Ps. 118:155, Prov. 2:16, Prov. 4:24, Prov. 5:8, Prov. 7:19, Prov. 13:19, Prov. 15:29, Prov. 19:7, Prov. 22:15, Prov. 27:10, Prov. 30:8, Eccl. 7:24, Job 30:10, Job 36:3, Wis. 14:17, Sir. 9:13, Sir. 13:10, Sir. 15:8, Sir. 16:22, Sir. 24:32, Sir. 27:20, Sir. 30:23, Ps. Sol. 2:4, Ps. Sol. 4:1, Ps. Sol. 15:7, Ps. Sol. 16:1, Ps. Sol. 16:10, Mic. 4:3, Joel 4:8, Zech. 6:15, Zech. 10:9, Isa. 5:26, Isa. 27:9, Isa. 46:12, Isa. 57:9, Isa. 57:19, Isa. 59:11, Isa. 59:14, Jer. 2:5, Jer. 36:28, Ep. Jer. 1:72, Ezek. 6:12, Ezek. 11:15, Ezek. 12:22, Ezek. 22:5, Sus. 1:51, Sut. 1:51, Dat. 9:7
18 In the New Testament, occurrences of MAKRAN "1) far, a great way 2) far hence" are Matthew 8:30; Mark 12:34; Luke 7:6; 15:20; John 21:8; Acts 2:39; 17:27; 22:21; Ephesians 2:13; 17, occurrences of the adj. MAKROS "1) long 1a) of place: remote, distant, far off 1b) of time: long, long lasting" are Matthew 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 15:13; 19:12; 20:47, occurrences of the adv. MAKROTHEN "from afar, afar" are Matthew 26:58; 27:55, Mark 5:6; 8:3; 11:13; 14:54; 15:40; Luke 16:23; 18:13; 22:54; 23:49; Revelation 18:10, 15, 17
19 "the supernatural gift of speaking in another language without its having been learnt" Vine
20 Are You Truly Safe?, Published by the Iglesia ni Cristo, 2002, p. 18
21 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
22 "... out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." Isaiah 2:3 just like Jesus said in Luke 24:49
23 History of the Christian Church, Volume II, ANTE-NICENE
CHRISTIAINITY a.d. 100-325, Philip Schaff, v 2
24 Christianity Through the Centuries, A History of the Christian Church, Earle E. Cairns, Academie Books, 1981, p. 14
26 Isaiah 2:3; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:4
27 Matthew 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47
33 1 Cor 1:2; Rom 16:16, et al.
34 Eph 3:4; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27
36 Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17
38 Jude 3, Eph 4:5; Philip 1:27; Romans 1:16
40 This was the trick played on myself. I was invited to what was being termed a "Bible study." I agreed to "Bible study," but in the meeting there were no Bibles and not a peep out of the audience.
42 Are You Truly Safe?, Published by the Iglesia ni Cristo, 2002, pp. 19, 20
43 Eph 1:22, 23; 4:4; Col 1:18
45 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
46 2001 Spring Bible Institute Lectureship MORMONISIM, David P. Brown, editor, Copyright 2001 by Contending For The Faith, p. 369, Miscellaneous Mistakes of the Mormons, by Darrell Conley
47 Are You Truly Safe?, Published by the Iglesia ni Cristo, 2002, p. 18
48 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
49 http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/F/FarEast.asp
50 "Latitude and Longitude," Geoffrey J. Martin, Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.