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
April 25, 2002
Dear Mr. Ventilacion,
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 12, 2002. I apologize for taking so long to respond.
In Matthew 12:22-37, Jesus had healed a man as the multitudes looked on. The Pharisees heard it and came up with an ingenious, devilish accusation. Their accusation was designed to place doubt in the people's mind as to the source of the power Jesus used to heal. After all, the power was invisible and so the accusation was not easy to disprove. If Jesus said nothing in response, it would leave the people in doubt as to the true source of Jesus' power. Was it from God as claimed, or from Satan as the Pharisees claimed? Jesus answered them with several arguments, but here is the one I want to focus on for the sake of yourself and any who might read this:
Jesus then argued, "And if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, by whom do your sons cast them out?" Of course, the Pharisees exercised no real power, but Jesus was simply turning the tables on them to see if they could disprove what His question implied. In this way Jesus cast the doubt back on the Pharisees' source of power in casting out demons. Their accusation of Jesus was not for Him to disprove, but for them to prove. A miracle had just been accomplished before the eyes of many, but would the Pharisees deal with that demonstrable fact? No. They simply ignored it and went on to make personal attacks on Jesus.
Jesus responded with other arguments, but I want to stop here and make application.
Their accusation was ingenious and devilish, but it was not peculiar to them for men still use such tricks today, men such as yourself. The tactic of the Pharisees was that of yourself, namely, that of personal attack (ad hominem). Jesus made claims, but not just claims. He backed them up with proof, in this case, that of a miracle. When questioned, Joe does not back up his claim to inspiration or his other claims. Rather than prove what you claim, or answer questions under cross-examination, you simply attack your opponent on a personal level. You will use this tactic repeatedly. The true apostles of Christ never resorted to insult or personal attack, but exercised reason, appealing to reason, in their declaration of the gospel. This ad hominem tactic of yours works, because people tend to believe what they hear. If you say many bad things about me, the multitudes are left to suppose that maybe all those bad things are true. However, just as the multitudes needed to think clearly and recall that the Pharisees did not disprove the miracle Christ performed, nor did they prove by what power they cast out demons, the public needs to be kept alert that Joe has not proven his claims. We have a saying, "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander." So, I would like to keep before the public eye that Joe does not answer questions or prove his assertions; that when he is questioned on his claims, he has no answer, just a personal attack, or some response like, "Well, if you do not believe, that is your option." Is this the best the Harvard doctor can do? I want to keep before the public also the observation that when one resorts to personal attack rather than a reasoned response to arguments, it is a good indication that the person does not have the truth on the subject.
To prove my assertion that Joe resorts to personal attack, I will point out that he left my questions unanswered, and said these things of me:
- My letter was a "diatribe and poor exegesis." Okay, but where is your exegesis, doctor? Okay, my "exegesis" is "poor," but you did not say why, and you offered none.
- I am a "seemingly intelligent man," implying no real intelligence. I take this remark to be an insult. I may not have much intelligence, but I have read enough of the Bible enough times to know that you have lied concerning its contents. This I have already demonstrably shown in my first letter.
- I made "cantankerous arguments against the Iglesia Ni Cristo." Yes, I oppose the Iglesia Ni Cristo Administration, but you forgot to mention yourself. You are the one I am directly opposing. As for the members of your organization, I presume them to be sincere, honest, and open-minded.
- I am "spiritually blind" and "physically blind." I must be a prophet. How did I know that response was going to be used? How did I know? How did I know that an attack on my person was coming? It's the same response I've heard from Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Personal attack is easy for them and you, answering questions and proving your doctrine is much more difficult, in fact, it is impossible. If it were possible, you could, and would, do it in five minutes. For example, if you could show why the "your children" of Acts 2:39 must be figurative, you would, but you can't, so you don't, so you resort to personal attack. You are doing exactly what the blasphemous Pharisees did to Jesus. Your attack is calculated to place doubt in people's mind as to the truthfulness of what I have said. I remind the reader that I did make affirmations and backed up such in my letter, while you do not. You admit this when you style my letter "lengthy" and say I "exhausted much time in trying to show [my] points." (Yes, I did this and appreciate you noticing that I fulfilled my intent. I was as verbose as I could be, but you still were not willing to grasp the truth.) Yes, my physical eyes are poor and rapidly becoming more so. I hate wearing bifocals. However, I still maintain that, in our first meeting, whenever I attempted to read a verse and context of that verse, I looked around to see if anyone else was reading along, but I saw none doing that. All I saw was them looking at you. Nevertheless, here is the exact quote from my letter: "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." You need to slow down and read more closely and carefully, then you will see that I said, "Besides yourself, Joe," which means, Joe, that you had a Bible, not that you did not. No, I did not see Michael and David reading their Bibles. If they were then I apologize to them and am glad they were doing so. I pray they will continue to do so, reading the entire New Testament book by book multiple times until they know it like the backs of their hands. Knowledge is power and I want them to have it. I know what the scriptures say, and this is why you are not able to fool me. I know what the scriptures say and this is why I have power over you. (Matthew 7:15-23) I hope they'll study hard and enable themselves with great power.
- That I am "blinded by the devil." Such is exactly the tack taken by the unbelieving Pharisees mentioned above. They said, "by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." Joe says, "blinded by the devil." Well, Joe, by whom are you blinded? Of course, it could not be God who blinded you, right? Then, the remaining option is the devil (II Cor.4:4) (Isn't it amazing how such a statement works equally well for me, yet still proves nothing? Why? Because it has nothing to do with the issue, it is only a personal attack, not logic or reason.) Yes, it is easy for you to say, but we still notice that you do not point out what my error in exegesis is, nor do you offer any. You like to cite passages, but you do not deal with them directly, much less their context. Why such an aversion to truth?
- That I am a liar, from your words, "Here is again another of your lies." Joe, if I misrepresented who first suggested that the subject for debate concern the deity of Christ, I apologize. I did not intend to misrepresent, much less lie, about the matter. Yet, you did broach the subject of the deity of Christ when during the meeting, before any mention was made by anyone of the subject, or any mention was made of any debate, you referred to a point in time (and I am quoting you exactly from notes I took during the meeting), "before Jesus came to exist." The implication of such a statement is that Jesus is not God. I did not put these words into your mouth, but on my paper immediately upon hearing them come out of your mouth.
Yes, I am all these bad things to some degree, but we notice, Joe, that you still have not answered my questions nor have you proven your claims. You still do not point out the error of my exegesis, nor do you offer your own.
You said that my "favorite topic" is "the alleged 'deity of Christ.'" You can't be serious, can you? Everyone knows the "deity of Christ," the denial thereof, is your hobby, not mine. It is a chief tenet of your religion. Your denial of the deity of Christ is the same blasphemy committed by the Pharisees mentioned above.
You point to your great learning and standing at Harvard. Why? Does your learning change truth? Do all need your knowledge to be saved? Do all the members of Iglesia Ni Cristo know what you know? The more you point to your education, the more you point to your reliance on it, and the more you prove my point for me, namely, that you are not inspired. The apostles of Christ did not go to Harvard, nor did they take any class anywhere because, in a miraculous way, in an instant, they preached the gospel of Christ. (Acts 2:4) Claiming inspiration is a serious matter. By such you place yourself on a par with authors of the books of the Bible. You are claiming the miraculous. Are you ready to recant on this point? If you are so learned, why have I corrected you on every scripture you cited and misused? If you are so learned, why was there such misuse of scripture by you in the first place? Why is it that with all your learning you could not answer a single question of mine?
You said, "Since you have requested for a debate and will not agree with my proposal to hold a comparative bible study, send me your proposals and I'll examine them if they are worthy of my consideration." I am glad that you have admitted a difference between "debate" and your event which you style "comparative bible study." Yes, there is a difference, and it is as I stated before, and you here admit, that I requested "debate." In fair debate, both sides are under what you call "cross-examination." In your proposal for "comparative bible study," whether the reader sees it or not, you try to escape the "cross-examination" phase of debate by having your opponent affirm once, while you clean up with a denial. Why do you stipulate that my proposal must place me under cross-examination, but your own proposal did not place you under the same? No, your "question and answer" period is not a cross-examination. It is funny that you would "warn" me that you "will not agree to hold any debate with [me] or somebody else from [my] group who will not submit to a cross-examination during the debate." Yet, the proposal you sent excused yourself from that very thing. No, Joe, I want to see both sides under "cross-examination." Why? Because I think debate is a great way to get to the truth. I don't want debate for the sake of debate, but I want the truth.
So you have faced many debaters publicly? I wonder then why you said in your letter of March 22, 2002 that it will be "the Administration of the Church in the Philippines regarding this activity and the one who shall determine who will represent our Church ...." In our first meeting you said you would debate, then you said your Administration will decide, but now you point me to your [supposed] numerous victories in debates past. Well, are you going to be the debater or not? I rather hoped it would be you because of your past experience and especially because of your claim to inspiration. Who could possibly defeat an inspired man?
I have done some homework on your past. You speak of past debates as though they were victories. Why not supply us with unedited video tapes, audio tapes, or transcriptions of such? (This was allowed in your proposal for "COMPARATIVE BIBLE STUDY.") Let these recorded victories serve as evangelistic tools. Let us all see how you and your church conducted themselves in these meetings. I am particularly interested in your meeting with Karl Keating. I have been told that you have an edited version of that video tape. If true, then you should also have the unedited version. Would you care to supply me with the unedited version? If you cannot, or will not, may I have the edited version? Why did Mr. Keating need a "body guard"? Why does the Iglesia Ni Cristo have a reputation for physical intimidation and doing bodily harm to their opponents? The tract you gave me entitled, "Are You Truly Safe," speaks of the attacks on the World Trade Center as a "gruesome tragedy." Well, what, pray tell, is the difference between your use of physical intimidation and that of the Muslims who committed this act? The only difference is that of scale, but the philosophy appears to be the same. The pen is mightier than the sword, and the "sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God," is the only sword I need to defeat you. (Ephesians 6:17) Thus far you have not dealt with this sharp two-edged sword. (Hebrews 4:12)
You boast of three who "have chickened-out." Who are they? Would you care to back up such a boast? (1 Kings 20:11) Would one of those be Lanning Courtney? Did he not send you a proposition twice to which you did not respond? Who is the chicken? I am not very good at math, but I can put two and two together and when I looked at the lop-sided proposal you gave me, then heard you speak of these chickens, I began to figure that you probably gave those chickens the same lopsided proposals. Then, when your opponent did not agree to such unfairness, you boasted that such were chickens. Lanning did not give you anything lopsided, or any restrictions which would interfere with intellectual, fair, and gentlemanly debate. Nor did he call upon you to affirm what you do not yourself affirm constantly. All he did was install rules to ensure that fair debate would take place.
You said, ".... I'll examine them if they are worthy of my consideration." Here is your "wiggle room." Of course, if you "chickened-out," you can always say, "The debate was not worthy of my consideration." But I doubt you'll say why.
Enclosed is a proposition from Lanning Courtney for your "consideration." From a logical standpoint, it is not all that different from your own except that the affirmative and negative are repeated.
You said, "The Catholic Church has devised a hypothetical line of succession from the apostles as well as the Orthodox. Your biggest problem is to show your connection with the apostles who succeeded Christ in administering the Church. You will need also a hypothetical timeline to connect your present group to the first-century Church of Christ. You will find that it will be impossible to do so since your group did not even exist during the Reformation."
I am stunned that you would speak of the "first-century Church of Christ" then labor to prove that it did not exist during, but after, the Reformation. I will remind you again that I belong to the church of Acts 2:47, as I pointed out to you in the beginning. You say that the idea of "succession from the apostles" is "hypothetical." I take it that you think this succession hypothesis is erroneous. Well, Joe, I agree with you. But then you turn around and say I will need the same hypothesis. This is your straw man again. You say the succession hypothesis is erroneous, then you charge me with needing it. Not so. This was my point in our meeting and my letter of March 31, 2002. This point you still fail to grasp. This point is why you so vehemently objected to my citing of the second clause in Romans 10:17 "and hearing by the word of God." You don't want me hearing by the word of God because that contradicts your as-of-yet unproven contention that nobody can understand the scripture without your guidance. Like it or not, a person is manifestly saved by faith, and "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Therefore, it remains as I pointed out before, that when I read I am hearing what the truly inspired apostles of Christ said, AND I am hearing their truly inspired explanation of what they said. Such produces in me the faith that saves and leaves Joe and his religion completely out of the picture.
You said, "Nobody from the Reformers has started your group!" You are exactly right. My group, also called Christians, was started by the apostles in the first century. (Acts 2:47; 11:26)
You ask, "Where is your church prior to the reformation?" It is right where I told you in the first few minutes we were ever in each other's presence: Acts 2:47, approximately the year 30 AD.
You think I need a hypothetical succession of teachers, but I don't and never thought I did. Why? Slow down and read carefully what Jesus prayed for:
"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." (John 17:20-21 NKJV)
Let me cite the passage again, but for the sake of clarity I will supply the antecedents:
"I do not pray for these [the apostles] alone, but also for those [people like me] who will believe in Me through their [the apostles'] word; that they [Christians like me] all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."
What is my connection with Christ? A succession of apostles or teachers? Nope. My connection to Christ is through the apostles themselves; through their word. I do exactly what Christ prayed for, namely, I believe in Christ through what the apostles said. The result of believing in Christ through this one doctrine is that of unity. All those since the beginning of the church who have sought unity through some other means were doomed to failure. Unity can only be had through one doctrine, not "another gospel," such as yours. (Galatians 1:6-9) No, I need no succession hypothesis as you suppose.
I am glad you admit there was a first century "Church of Christ." Now, why do you constantly capitalize what is not a proper noun?
In your tract, "Are You Truly Safe," Iglesia Ni Cristo points to their rapid growth, grand social works, membership, land, and many edifices. In like fashion, you say, "Iglesia Ni Cristo continues to march." Well, your logic proves that the Mormons are right, for they use the same line of reasoning. Are they right, Joe? Have you not read, "a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water"? (1 Peter 3:21) Your line of argumentation would mean that Noah's preaching was a failure since only eight were saved. Well, without Noah's character you would not even be here. You should not bad mouth his efforts so. Peter called him a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), but your argument makes his work out to be a failure. According to your line of reasoning, Noah was wrong. The law of Moses stated, "You shall not follow a crowd to do evil ...." (Exodus 23:2) Your argument is that Iglesia Ni Cristo must be right because of its numbers or progress. I know of other fellows who march besides yourself, and their followers march behind them—and they all fall in the ditch together. (Matthew 15:14) The apostle Paul even mentioned that evil men make progress when he said, "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Timothy 2:13) Your argument defends evil itself.
When the judgement comes, are you prepared to answer for what you have said and done? There will be no debating with Jesus. (Matthew 7:21-23) For your own sake, and for the sake of those who hear you, I urge you to seriously contemplate the eternal result of your efforts.
In Matthew 21:23-27, Jesus was teaching in the temple and the chief priests confronted Jesus with the questions, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" To which Jesus responded, "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things." Joe cites passages, then, when questioned about those passages, he runs to others. When questioned on these, he then runs to others. He is like a rabbit running from hole to hole hiding from his opponent. Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Calvinists in general, and others do this same thing. Without ever dealing with a single passage Joe cited in our first meeting, he now wants to run to others he has cited in his letter of April 12, 2002. But if Joe is wrong on any passage he has already cited, citing other passages will not make him right on the passage on which he is wrong. I will be happy to deal with these other passages just as soon as you will deal with the ones you first cited in our meeting. When you get those right we can look at others.
Again, you did not answer any of my questions. Were they too difficult? Maybe the Core study group of your religion needs more time. Before citing them again, please notice that I have added two more questions. Don't forget to answer them, for if you do not I will keep that fact constantly before the public.
Here the questions submitted before which remain unanswered:
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?
____________________________________________________________
20) Who baptized Felix Manalo?
____________________________________________________________
21) Can you point me to a single manuscript of a New Testament book in Aramaic? I do not want a "version," but I want an Aramaic, word-for-word copy of an Aramaic autograph of a New Testament book.
____________________________________________________________
Sincerely,
Patrick Kelly