One New Man
About the “One New Man” of Ephesians 2:15 that the Iglesia ni Cristo claims to be “Christ and the Church”, the passage inside the right context is as plain as it reads. Paul was talking to the Ephesians “who were pagans physically” (v 11) together with all the pagans and thus distinct from Israel — “aliens with no part in the covenants” (v 12). These two groups that become one new man are the covenant people — Israel – and the pagans “who were far away” (v 17; cf. v 13) that become one body of Christ. In this part of the letter, Paul was talking about “you and us” which obviously refer to the Israelites and the so-called Gentiles or pagans. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul further elaborated the differences in which individuals are divided into different groups and how Christ “broken down the barrier which used to keep them apart” (v 14): “all baptised in Christ, you have all clothed yourselves in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Ga 3:27-28). The same was written to the Romans: “When Scripture says: those who believe in him will have no cause for shame, it makes no distinction between Jew and Greek: all belong to the same Lord who is rich enough, however many ask his help, for everyone who calls in the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rm 10:11-13). The one new man is not composed of Christ and his Church as the Iglesia ni Cristo claims it to be. This new man is Jesus Christ himself whose mystical body — the Church — is composed of everyone who calls on the name of the Lord and have received “the spirit of son” (R 8:15).
This concept of one new man, as plain as it can be, was twisted by the Iglesia ni Cristo in order to claim that it is only them, and the first century Church, who will be saved because only those who were physically membered to this alleged “body of Christ” are the redeemed. This lie that Christ and his Church are the one new man was partnered with the passage that reads, “Fathers my not be put to death for their sons, nor sons for fathers. Each is to be put to death for his own sin” (Dt 14:16). The Iglesia ni Cristo argues that Christ cannot save the world from its sin because that sin is not his own; however, they say, those who will be members of Iglesia ni Cristo will be parts of the body of Christ and so their sins will be his own, and his death on the cross will be their payment and redemption. Sounds plausible — yet, it is not. First of all, the point of Deutoronomy 14:16 is about individual responsibility. No man can morally pay for the trespasses of others, although it may be legally possible. God’s justice is moral, and so it requires payment from the same debtor. However, since man can do nothing to pay the eternal price for the eternal debt to the eternal God; and since God’s love is eternal, “he gave his only son” (Jn 3:16) — begotten from eternity, and so is eternal — so that the world may be saved through belief in him. This act of God’s love through Christ, however, did not diminish the accountability of each individual, since they are still held responsible for their actions and non-action in that matter. Each one is responsible for his own soul as justice requires. Christ’s redemptive act, however, made it possible for man to pay for his debts, that is to offer for the eternal offense of his sin an eternal sacrifice who is Jesus Christ himself. “If there is no shedding of blood, there is no remission” (He 9:22); and yet, even if one dies a thousand times, he cannot pay even for just a single sin, because the taker of the offence is an eternal God. It should take an eternal man both to offer the sacrifice and be the sacrificed victim for the remission of sin. Only Jesus, of all men, can do this as he himself said, “I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was, I am” (Jn 8:58), and John the Baptist also gave witness to the eternity of Jesus when he said, “He who comes after me ranks before me because he existed before me” (Jn 1:15). In short, Jesus — both the High Priest and the lamb — offers sacrifice and being sacrificed eternally to take away “the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29) and not only of those who are formal members of his Church. John also emphasized that truth in his letter: “He is the sacrifice that takes our sins away, and not only ours, but the whole world’s” (1 Jn 2:12). The lie about the Iglesia ni Cristo’s one new man is neither logical nor scriptural. God wants everyone to be saved (1 Tm 2:4) and he is able to do that; actually, he already did. To say that those who were and will not be members of the Church are destined to be condemned is mindless. God is not stupid as they present him. In fact, “God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom” (1 Co 1:25).
Instant Salvation & Eternal Security
What do I need to be saved? To listen to a preacher—never mind about the details—and wait for him to invite me to acknowledge that I am sinful and has no power to save myself, and believe that Jesus died in my place for my justification and salvation and after believing, follow the preacher’s prayer wholeheartedly? I wonder where these self-named “Bible Christians” found in the Bible the occurrence of the same activity that they are doing. Did Peter, Paul or James, when their listeners asked them what must they do to be saved, ever answer in such manner, saying “Believe that Jesus died for your sins and accept him as your personal Lord and Savior…Pray this prayer with me”? If ever, I haven’t encountered yet. I think, it is more frequent that you will hear about salvation such lines as “repent and be baptized”, “unless a man is born through water and the Spirit…”, “sell all that you own”, “if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” The questions of those who want to be saved all fall down to one short line: “What shall we do?” and it is just fitting to answer them accordingly. “DO repent and be baptized”, “DO sell all that you own”, etc. Besides, to acknowledge one’s own sinfulness is doing; to believe that Jesus died for oneself is also doing; to pray with the preacher is no doubt a deed; and to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior is also one. Working out one’s salvation is not a matter of acquiring a little theoretical knowledge about Jesus combined with a one-time powerful preacher’s prayer. If you cannot know a human person in just 2 to 3 meetings with him, it is much more impossible to know God and Jesus within a short period of time. Eternal life—that is salvation—is to know God and his Christ, not in theoretical sense as if knowing a certain historical event. You don’t know a person just because you know his name, or his family background, or his social background, or his past life; you know a person if you experience his existence. To know God is to experience him in your life; to be aware of his existence all the time; to know his truth and essence. Only through this knowing of truth can one worship God as one ought to—in truth and in spirit—and only through this can one have eternal life. Do not be deceived that God made an instant access to heaven. Jesus is the Way, and how can one claim to know the way if he doesn’t know Jesus? You may have a map of every road in the
Philippines but you really don’t know the way to anywhere unless you took that way. You really don’t know Jesus unless you walk in Jesus.
What if I have gone astray? Let this question be answered by an elementary student: What will happen if you have a map but did not follow the right path unto the end? “Don’t delude yourself into thinking God can be cheated: where a man sows, there he reaps.” Even if you sincerely believed that you were saved by Christ’s death and that you accept him as your personal Lord and Savior, the Justice of God will not change its standard: “He is a God who is always enraged by those who refuse to repent.” No one who knows the truth will apply a Boy Scout motto concerning salvation. “The man who stands firm to the end will be saved.” How about those who will change their minds? The conclusion is clear and self-explanatory. “If after we have given the knowledge of truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them.”
Will you honestly believe that God’s Justice will deem you sinless if you believe so—never mind if you’re cooperating or not? Would it not bother your conscience to believe that God will overlook your turning away from him provided that you have once accepted him as your personal Lord and Savior?
Faith vs. Work?
It is not an unknown fact to many that almost all learned Protestant preachers are among those of the most skilled apologists in the world of argumentation. However, due to some reasons, including sentimentality and inordinate adherence to their root (the Reformation), they are missing some simple and obvious truths with very easily understandable arguments. They, especially the Evangelicals as I observed it, have the necessary qualities of proclaimers that will surely benefit the whole world if they hold the accurate message of salvation.
One of the common unfavorable characteristics of the followers of Reformation is their constant habit of putting walls between two or more things that suppose to work together. It is as if they are saying “It’s either the left or the right eye,” “It’s either the heart or the mind,” or “It’s either the body or the soul”. Good things cannot go against each other since they all come from one Source. Moreover, there are things that God himself made to be bound together, or even to be interdependent.
Is it really sensible to say that it is either faith or work that we should hold on to in order to be justified in God’s eyes? Faith, according to a dictionary, is believing without proof; the same with trust and confidence. If faith is “believing”, then it is an act, or something done—a deed. Would we consider it inappropriate then to say that faith is a form of work since it is something done? Sometimes we hear other people say, “Don’t stop believing,” as if it is a state of continuous doing—which it is! Work, on the other hand, springs from faith. Everything we do (or work on, if some need to hear the term as such), we do on purpose, meaning that we believe (or have faith) that it will be done even if the present moment does not have the proof.
Abraham, when he was called by an unknown God, followed the instruction to leave the land of his father and go to where God will lead him. He did this not because he has no capability to decide for himself and his family, but because he believed the promise of the One who sent him. When God told him that many nations will come from him, he did believe; and when he was put to the test by asking his only son’s life, he did not doubt God’s promise but continued on believing the unbelievable. If Abraham did not leave his land or did not bring Isaac on Mount Moriah, will he be called the father of faith? Conversely, will Abraham leave the land or go to the mountain to offer Isaac if he did not believe? Complicating the truth to justify one’s sentiments is not doing the will of God but being idolater of one’s own idea or belief. If you say that you believe but do not leave your land (your present state) then you are fooling yourself and trying to deceive God. Believing that you can climb a treetop 10 seconds from now but not doing anything to make it is no better than not believing; it is not even any kind of belief. Literally speaking, without faith, there is no work; and without work, there is no faith.
What the Protestant Reformers have mixed up is the work that results from faith in Jesus and the work of the Law that Paul constantly emphasizes to have nothing to do with being saved or justified. The gospel relates the story of the rich young man who inquired the Teacher what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus did not ask him to believe but to sell all that he has and give the proceeds to the poor. Does it mean that this episode is not about believing? Doing is believing. Jesus said that he will have eternal life if he did what he said. This statement about doing, like any other, is indeed a matter of believing. If this man did what Jesus said, it is because he believed; but since he did not do it, his heart showed up—he has no faith. He went sad not really because he completely did not believe Jesus, for if it is the case, he will probably walk away laughing and not sad; neither it is because he is so wealthy, since if it is his richness that makes him sad, then what Jesus asked him to do will be a favorable action. Instead, he walked away sad because he wants to believe Jesus’ words but his faith in his wealth is far more greater than his will to believe to the one he called Master.
There is no contention between faith and work in the issue of justification or in any other application. It is not the work of God to make some confusion over His creation. If scientists have this “either-or” mentality that the Protestants developed and continuously adhere to, they will someday say that water is hydrogen alone or is oxygen alone. Even if one is very knowledgeable and far better than anybody else in delivering arguments, it must always be remembered that what God requires from us is humility. Heaven’s door is not tall enough to receive a person with high head, full of himself, so we need to bow down in order to enter. Let us seek God’s truth and not our own.
Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is true only in the sense that it is only the Bible that has God as its primary author, but is in error with the concept of the Bible being the sole authority and source of God’s truth. The books and the letters contained in the New Testament are some of the documents in the Church’s deposit of faith—commonly known as the Tradition. Due to circumstances, a canon was defined to distinguish among the writings what are inspired—that is those that has God’s authorship—and what are not. It does not mean that those “uninspired” rest do not hold God’s truth. There are millions of books today that explain God’s will and teaching, yet they don’t have God as their author. It is the same with the Church Tradition. These texts, although not part of the Bible, came from the apostles and passed down to their disciples, whom the Church called the Apostolic Fathers. These fathers in turn have their own followers, whom we call now as the Early Church Fathers. The church preserved this Tradition (handed teachings) from the beginning (cf. 1 Co 11:1) until today. Just as the Lord has promised, not in the 21-century history of the Church did it become unfaithful in keeping God’s revelation intact. The impossibility of that event to occur does not depend on human effort but rather on the continuous fulfillment of Christ’s word that not even the corruption of Satan may destroy the purity of the deposit of Faith (Mt 16:18).
Another error of the Protestant’s “Bible alone” is the idea that the issue of Scriptural interpretation is a matter to be left between the Bible and the reader. There is only one truth, so if thousands of groups claimed to hold thousands of different “one truth”, then it is certain that those who hold on to their own individual understanding do not actually hold the truth. God’s revelation is not a matter of private interpretation as the Scripture itself says (2 P 1:20); neither is it accurate that “Scripture interprets Scripture”. It is true that a part of the Scripture is being supported by another part, but it is also true that wrong interpretation of one part will be aggravated by the other part that supports it.
The Scripture (the New Testament documents and the canon of both testaments) was drawn from the Church and it is the Church alone who has the authority and protection to teach it free from error. Just as Paul proclaims, the Church is the one that upholds the truth and keeps it safe (1 Tm 3:15).
Pananalangin sa mga Banal
Bilang mga relihiyosong tao, ang mga Filipino ay sanay na sa iisang kahulugan ng salitang “panalangin”. Ito ay tumutukoy sa pakikipag-usap ng tao sa Diyos, maging sa paghingi man ng tawad, pagpupuri, pasasalamat, o paghingi ng tulong. Ngunit ang “panalangin” ay transliterasyon ng salitang Ingles na “prayer”, na hindi lamang nangangahulugan ng pakikipag-usap sa Diyos, kundi ng isang buong-pusong paghingi, o mas kilala sa katagang “pakikiusap”. Ang mga salita ni Shakespeare na “I know not how to pray your patience,” ay maaaring isalin na “Hindi ko alam kung paano hihingin ang iyong pasensya (o “pagpapatawad”, sa kontekstong ito). Ang pangungusap na “Pray, pass the sauce,” ay hindi marapat na isalin na “Dasal, iabot ang sarsa,” kundi “Pakiusap, iabot ang sarsa,” o kung paiikliin “Paki-abot ang sarsa”. Kung ang panggagalingan naman ay ang mga salitang “Pakiusap, ipagdasal mo ako,” at gagamitin sa Inglatera (salitang Ingles), maaari itong isalin na “I pray you, pray for me”—sa literal na salin sa Filipino, “Dalangin ko sa’yo, ipagdasal mo ako”. Hindi kailanman naipagkakamali ng Simbahan ang dalawang kahulugan ng salitang “panalangin”, yayamang mahigit 2000 taon na itong ginagamit ng mga Cristiano sa tama nilang aplikasyon. Iba ang pananalangin sa Diyos, at iba ang pananalangin sa tao. Kapag sinabi ko sa isang hari, “Dalangin ko sa Inyong Kamahalan na pakinggan ang aming mga hinaing,” nangangahulugan ba ito na itinuturing kong Diyos ang hari? Bagamat sinasabi ni Jesus na igalang ang isang hari tulad ng paggalang sa Panginoon, at kahit na sinasabi ni Pablo na paglingkuran ng mga alipin ang kanilang mga panginoon na parang si Jesus ang pinaglilingkuran, hindi ito nangangahulugan na kinikilala ng mga Cristiano ang mga taong ito bilang Diyos.
Iniibig Mo Ba Ako?
May 28, 2007 at 2:36 am (Commentary, Doctrinal)
Pagkakain nila, tinanong ni Jesus si Simon Pedro, “Simon, anak ni Juan, iniibig mo ba ako nang higit kaysa mga ito?” “Opo, Panginoon, nalalaman ninyong iniibig ko kayo,” tugon niya. Sinabi sa kanya ni Jesus, “Pakanin mo ang aking mga batang tupa.” Muli siyang tinanong ni Jesus, “Simon, anak ni Juan, iniibig mo ba ako?” “Opo, Panginoon, nalalaman ninyong iniibig ko kayo.” Ani Jesus, “Pangalagaan mo ang aking mga tupa.” Pangatlong ulit na tinanong siya ni Jesus, “Simon, anak ni Juan, iniibig mo ba ako?” Nalungkot si Pedro dahil makaitlo siyang tinanong: “Iniibig mo ba ako? At sumagot siya, “Panginoon, nalalaman po ninyo ang lahat ng bagay; nalalaman ninyong iniibig ko kayo.” Sinabi sa kanya ni Jesus, “Pakanin mo ang aking mga tupa.” (Jn 21:15-17)
Sa tagpong ito ay makikita ang dalawang katotohanan na pinanampalatayaan ng Simbahan mula pa noong panahon ng mga apostol hanggang ngayon. Una ay ang espesyal na tungkuling ibinigay ni Jesus kay Pedro bago siya bumalik sa Ama. Tatlong ulit na tinanong ni Jesus si Pedro kung iniibig siya nito, hindi dahil pinagdududahan niya ang sagot nito kundi upang bigyang diin ang pagiging espesyal at “pang-isahan” ng tungkuling iniaatang sa kanya. Sa oras na iyon ay bumuo si Jesus ng isang herarkiya ng mga mananampalataya na binubuo ng mga batang tupa, ng mga tupa, at ng tagapagpakain at tagapangalaga ng lahat. Si Pedro ay ginawa niyang lingkod ng mga lingkod ng Panginoon. Ang lahat ng mananampalataya ay lingkod ng Panginoon, pero sila man ay pinaglilingkuran din ng mga apostol na pinaglilingkuran naman ni Pedro kasama ng lahat. Hindi itinanong ni Jesus sa lahat, “Iniibig ba ninyo ako?” O kaya ay sinabi, “Pakanin ninyo at pangalagaan ang aking mga tupa at mga batang tupa.” Bakit hindi pa nakuntento si Jesus sa salitang “pangalagaan” samantalang nangangahulugan din naman na kasama sa pangangalaga ang pagpapakain? At bakit hindi pa siya nakuntento sa paggamit ng salitang “tupa” at ibinukod pa niya ang mga “batang tupa”. At bakit pakakainin lang ang mga batang tupa samantalang pangangalagaan at pakakainin ang mga tupa?
Continue reading…
Permalink 4 Comments