Is the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church Biblical? Part 2: A Response to Beltran’s Rebuttals

By Heavens Knight

In relation to the first topic we prepared, a rebuttal was then posted by one of Mr. Abe Arganiosa’s minion, named Beltran, to defend his belief. It was proven that Mr. Arganiosa, a Catholic priest, has almost failed to agree in a peaceful confrontation between him and Bro. Eli Soriano, winner of “The Most Educational to Follow” category in the recently held Open Web Awards by Mashable.com.

Unfortunately, Mr. Arganiosa and his company were tempted to use some trash talking to survive the issue. They kept on making some insults and accusations to put off their opponent. Sadly, Beltran even chose to entitle his masterpiece with an intention to offend.

Beltran wrote: REFUTATION ON THE FOOLISHNESS OF CHRISTIANACCUSER

Beltran may not be aware in his attacking. When he used Christian Accuser, he might be attacking Christian Defender, an owner of this blog. It is not Christian Defender who wrote the first article about church’s name but your servant Heaven’s Knight, a contributor on this blog. Obviously, Beltran is barking at the wrong tree.

Anyway, readers are intelligent and fair enough to discern an ad hominem or personal attack like what was used by Mr. Arganiosa’s minion. Their devices could hinder them in establishing respect, I’m not sure I would use the same. Perhaps they are not aware of the danger of their trash talking. All I can say is keep up your trash talks Beltran!

Search and read – no more, no less

Let us have first some basic knowledge regarding proper usage of the Bible. What is the discipline taught by God regarding the rightful Bible usage? (Isaiah 34:16)

Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

(2 Peter 1:20)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

It is clearly commanded that the scripture or the book of the Lord must be searched and read; it didn’t demand any private interpretation for it is complete, no one of these shall fail, and none shall want her mate. Also, being apostolic, we must conform to apostles teachings. Apostles, and even prophets, neither permitted to omit nor to exceed to what was written. St. Paul said, (1Corinthians 4:6)

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Jeremiah, according to the Lord, wrote that it is prohibited to diminish a word in the scriptures. (Jeremiah 26:2)

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Anyone proven to do otherwise is introduced in the Bible as liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Thus, the Bible must be searched and read without adding or omitting words from it. If not, one may be found a liar.

Exegesis vs Eisegesis

Another important thing to consider, we must know how to exegete when reading or using Bible passages. According to The Religion Book, exegesis is the science (some would call it an art or method of interpretation) of determining exactly the meaning of a particular passage of writing. This technique is used by all who study any writing, but especially by those who study religious scripture.

http://www.answers.com/topic/exegesis

The antonym of this rightful method is called eisegesis. Eisegesis, on the other hand, according to Wordsmith Words, is an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

http://www.answers.com/topic/eisegesis

Therefore, to get the right interpretation of a passage, we must not put our idea over the scripture but rather we must get our idea from the scriptures. Being exegetic could be better.

Counterarguments against Beltran’s rebuttals

Now, let us examine the arguments raised by Beltran if those can prove him right. We don’t claim that we are experts in debates, yes, we know a little. But I am afraid if the word intelligent will be given to someone who is, we may say, idiot.

It could also help if we will read Christian Defenders article about definitions of fallacy to cope with some terminologies used in my write up.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/the-fallacies-in-arguments-of-abraham-arganiosa/

Let us start, please observe the humble saying and intelligence of our opponent.

Beltran said: We really don’t know if this guy is in the right manner to THINK. neither, we know, if HE HAS A BRAIN. in his comments above, he showed at least eleven verses in the Bible which says the name of the church is “church of God”.. is he insane?

It is so sad that someone who doesn’t even know how to punctuate rightfully or spell his words is the one claiming to be a thinker or intelligent. Anyway, I am just an unworthy servant who is dependent on God’s mercy and help; I don’t have anything to be proud of.

Church of God or Roman Church?

First, Beltran tries to invalidate our stand by stating the name, Church of God, used by apostles eleven times was not the official name. He didn’t even substantiate his right to nullify it and sadly, there seems to be an eisegesis. Let us examine.

Beltran wrote: All of those verses which ADD use as a proof that theirs is the TRUE Church were invalid evidences to justify that the apostles gave the official name “Church of God” to the true followers of Christ. The said passages merely emphasize that Christian Church is OF GOD. it denotes OWNERSHIP. as a matter of fact, Jesus said,

“You are Peter, upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH” (Matthew 16:18)

Beltran is aware that the term Church of God can be read in the Bible eleven times; the whole term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, none. He was trying to nullify the validity of the term Church of God being its official name by limiting its usage as mere ownership only.

Let us follow his argument. Let’s say it is not the official name, for the term Church of God only denotes God’s ownership of the church. Could that prove that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is the official name used by the apostles?

Beltran even used the term Church of Roman (a.k.a. Roman Church). To have a parallelism and to be fair, we can also say that Church of Rome is not an official name for the term Roman Church only denotes ownership of Rome. To avoid being mistaken for having an artificial, straw-man question, let us quote what Beltran said.

Beltran wrote: Another IGNORANCE OF THIS ACCUSER is that, the CATHOLIC CHURCH does not limit herself with the Church of Rome. The Seat of Authority is in ROME but we also have Churches who does not want to be called “Roman”. we have the BYZANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH,. MARONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH, URKANIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and so forth. However, these Churches were ALL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ROME.

Take note of the emphasized phrases. Our opponent clearly believes that the word Roman was inserted to signify the authority of Pope in Rome. That means the seat of power or authority is centered in Rome.

If the term Roman Church or Church of Rome was accepted by Beltran, that is to denote the seat of power in Rome, why can’t he accept the term Church of God being the official name wherein the ownership of power must be attributed to God? Which is better, Church of God or Church of Rome? If the power or authority must be attributed to the pope in Rome instead of God, how can we be courteous in yearning the Lord’s Prayer? (Matthew 6:9-13)

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

It says “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever”. It didn’t say for thine power or seat of authority is in the pope in Rome. Glory, power and kingdom must be attributed to the one who deserves it – God.

Beltran may say that they just avoid using God’s name for it was used by God’s enemies (Psalms 139:20).

Beltran wrote: If one would think properly: A man’s mistress would often claim to be the latters LEGAL WIFE, on the other hand, the real spouse would NO LONGER CLAIM to be such, because she has all the proof. in the sameway, Why we have to be NAMED, “CHURCH OF GOD” if we are really the true Church? We must not USE GOD’S NAME in order to justify ourselves. consider the following analogy:

1) Mike Arroyo is known to be the “Son of the President”, but he need not CLAIM IT OPENLY that he is the Son of the President.

2) If the true Church was officially named by the apostles as “Church of God”. then why during old testament era, Jews wasn’t officially named as “PEOPLE OF GOD?” they are called “people of God” but the OFFICIAL NAME of the Jewish nation is ISRAEL. Elijah is called “MAN OF GOD” , but his name is “Elijah”. The Lord Jesus is called “The Son of God” but his name is “Jesus”. The Holy Spirit is called “The Spirit of God” but his name is “Holy Spirit”. furthermore, THE BIBLE TESTIFIED THAT THOSE WHO USE THE NAME OF GOD WERE HIS ENEMIES.

Thine ENEMIES take thy name in vain” (Psalms 139:20)

See? who then between the Catholic Church and Members, Church of God International, who use God’s Name???

It is true that enemies of God use His name; but not all. We cannot accept that apostles and penmen are enemies of God for they used God’s name in introducing the church name not once but eleven times. Beltran may also say that it was also said in the Bible that thou shall not used God’s name in vain (Exodus 7:20). Of course, God will hold someone guilty upon immoral use of God’s name. But it will be otherwise if we will use God’s name according to His will. The problem with our opponent is that he didn’t qualify who are those who use God’s name in vain and not. This logical fallacy of dicto simplicitir or sweeping generalization must be thrown out of the discussion.

Where did the apostles got the name of the church they preached? Did they get it in Rome? Let us read in writings of Paul to Ephesians. (Ephesians 3:14-15)

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,oOf whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Being apostolic, remember, we must learn from apostles like St. Paul. Apostle Paul said that for this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul is pertaining to the God, our Father in heaven. Then he said, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named… Therefore, the name of the whole family, the household of faith, the church, must be named after God. The house of God in the Bible was none other than the Church of God. (1Timothy 3:15)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The people of God were even called by God’s name. For this, they can achieve God’s forgiveness and listening. (Daniel 9:19)

O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

(2Chronicles 7:14)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The people of God called by His name are also those who were introduced as the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, holy nation, a peculiar people, called out of darkness, spiritual house, holy priesthood. (1Peter 2:9, 4-5)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

And the house of God in Christian dispensation is none other than the Church of God (1 Timothy 3:15).

Therefore, which is better, Church of God or Roman Church?

Another obvious factual error committed, Beltran said that Mike Arroyo is known to be the “Son of the President”.

Beltran wrote:

1) Mike Arroyo is known to be the “Son of the President”, but he need not CLAIM IT OPENLY that he is the Son of the President.

I think this time Mike Arroyo must prove it openly to Beltran that he is not the son of the president. He is, indeed, the husband of the president, the first gentleman. I know of someone named Mikey Arroyo as the son of the president, I hope our intelligent opponent also know that.

In Beltran’s next rebuttal, I request you dear readers to pay more attention on this. Compare what I wrote and Beltran’s version.

My version: The term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not familiar to early Christians. It was also never used and mentioned by the apostles in preaching the true congregation established by God. They used the term Church of God.

Beltran’s version: Is this guy really knows and read the Bible? or was just deceived by PAPA Eli?

Does the term “Catholic” unfamiliar to early Christians? why did the new testament writers used the term “KATH’OLES” ?? kath’oles is the ROOT of the english word CATHOLIC.

I am consistent in saying that the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not familiar to early Christians. In order to refute, four words become one. Beltran trimmed down what I said to single word. This straw man’s objection is too weak for he hadn’t refuted my argument but, his caricatured version of his own argument.

Another problem we may encounter, if we will use Beltran’s chopping style, many other church’s name can be proven right. He sliced the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church then read every single word in the Bible.

His argument goes like this.

Catholic can be read in the Bible.

Apostolic can be read in the Bible.

Romans can be read in the Bible.

Church can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is Biblical.

I think this could surely reduce to argumentum ad logicam or argument to logic, a kind of fallacy. It doesn’t follow that if, granting, you can read the word catholic in the Bible, the word apostolic in the Bible, the word Roman, and the word church, it automatically means that the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is the official name to be used. Non sequitur, Beltran, non sequitur.

Why is that so? We can also read baptist in the Bible. Does that mean the name of the church could also be Baptist Church?

Baptist can be read in the Bible.

Church can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Baptist Church is Biblical.

What is more horrible about Beltran’s argument is satan can also be read in the Bible. Does it follow that the church of satan is also an official name?

Satan can be read in the Bible.

Church can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Church of satan is Biblical.

Church of satan can also be proven an official name if we use Beltran’s slicing style. Thus, if that could be the legal and valid way of proving the official name of the church, more so, we can also prove our stand – Church of God!

The phrase Church of God can be read in the Bible.

Therefore, Church of God is Biblical.

How then can you discard our stand now, Beltran? Hay, reductio ad absurdum…

The term Church of God must not be disregarded. It was actually used by apostles and penmen in their writings almost as early as 50 A.D. We may better used terms familiar to apostles and early Christians than that those terms officially accepted and used almost 1,800 years after. We cannot even read a single verse in the Bible that proves apostles claim the title Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the official name. What we can read based from Catholic’s publication, the name Roman Catholic Church, before being accepted, was rejected first by bishops.

Catholic

It was only made official in 1870 after a unanimous decision made by bishops who assembled at the Vatican Council. It was not the apostles who decided to use the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church but bishops of Rome. I suggest to our opponent to have a review of his church’s name history to avoid hasty rebukes. That could help him, I think.

Therefore, I am at my wits when I say that the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is neither familiar to apostles nor early Christians. I would suggest Beltran to try to defend other stand other than the name once rejected by his bishops and just made official after revision last 1870 so it could be more comfortable for him. I would suggest defending the name Church of God for God’s glory.

We cannot even deny that the name Church of God taught by apostles is official. Were apostles able to teach unofficial terms especially if they learned it from God? What teaching or word of God is unofficial? In Psalms it says, (Psa 119:160)

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The word of God is true from the beginning: and every one of His righteous judgments endured forever. Can we sought a word or teaching from God that is not official?

Define Universal

We are afraid that the one claiming to be a thinker or intelligent has an inconsistent definition of the word universal. And even his definitions had added merits to our stand that the church during the first century A.D. couldn’t be catholic for it will be an anachronism.

Anachronism, according to Wordsmith Words, means

1. The error of placing a person, object, custom, or event in the wrong historical period.

2. A person, thing, or practice that does not belong in a time period.

http://www.answers.com/topic/anachronism

Beltran, if intentional, has forcibly defined universal in many ways.

Beltran wrote:

Catholic means Universal, (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45)

…and Universal means OF ALL NATIONS.

UNIVERSAL means PRESENT EVERYWHERE…

… UNIVERSAL ALSO MEANS “THROUGH OUT”

… When we say UNIVERSAL, it COULD MEAN “FOR ALL PEOPLE OF EVERY NATION” meaning, EVERY ONE IS INVITED OR WELCOME. AND IT IS BIBLICAL!! (REVELATIONS 5:9-10)

We thank Beltran for giving us his definitions of the word universal, for that, we can gauge his true knowledge regarding this matter. I’m sure Mr. Abe Arganiosa will be proud of him. In his description of the church way back first century A.D., he said it best that the church is universal. Meaning, it can be found to all nations, present everywhere, for all people of every nation, everyone is invited or welcome.

If we will examine the scripture, is it true that the church during the time of the apostles was present everywhere? Can it be found in all nations? Let us read information from the Bible so that we will not be misinformed. (Matthew 10:23)

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

It was told by Jesus Christ that the apostles had not finished the cities of Israel. Meaning, there were places that were not gone through by apostles’ preaching. So, how come the church during the first Christian era was introduced as universal if there were towns not gone over by apostles? Is it true now that the church is universal or catholic? Apostles never even reached the Philippines, so how come that the church in their time was of all nations?

Even in our present time, there are countries that Catholicism is not entertained. I think our friend needs to review the reference I gave for missing it will make him look inattentive.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108492.htm

Maybe he will say that being for all nations also means that all are welcome or invited (like one of the definition he gave). Is it true that the church taught by the apostles is inviting all people? Let us read in Galatians 1:8, it says,

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Anyone who will come in the church and will scarcely bring other gospel other than what Apostle Paul taught is not welcome. Using Beltran’s definition only proves that the church mentioned in the Bible is not the Catholic Church. The Church of God taught by apostles has delicadeza, not everyone is welcome.

Another thing we will not let pass, Beltran is making interpretation where he is injecting his own idea rather than expressing the meaning of the word universal.

Please examine dear readers the definition he supplied and his own conclusion.

Beltran wrote:

UNIVERSAL – 1)Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or ALL within the world; WORLDWIDE:

– 5) applicable or occurring THROUGHOUT or relating to the universe;

(Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universal)

See? WHO ARE YOU TO ACCUSE US OF USING THE TERM CATHOLIC? WHEREAS YOUR TERM INTERNATIONAL HAS THE SAME ESSENCE OF THE WORD CATHOLIC!!

MOREOVER, This guy DESPERATELY ATTEMPT to make a DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TERM” THROUGH OUT ALL” BEING USED IN ACTS 9:31 WITH THE TERM “CATHOLIC” as proven by a NON-BIASED WEBSITE PROVIDED ABOVE. UNIVERSAL ALSO MEANS “THROUGH OUT”

He said in his conclusion that the word universal means throughout. But if we will review his reference, his conclusion is very far from the dictionary’s definition. Let us check.

UNIVERSAL – 1)Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or ALL within the world; WORLDWIDE:

– 5) applicable or occurring THROUGHOUT or relating to the universe;

The word universal’s fifth definition means applicable or occurring throughout or relating to the universe. In Beltran’s version, he trimmed it down to “throughout”. He threw out eight words from the definition he gave. This chopping style could be his ineffective and remarkable signature device.

Another thing to remember, universal is an adjective but, throughout is used as an adverb or proposition according to the dictionary Beltran used.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/throughout

The proof that throughout doesn’t mean universal can be read in Acts. 9:31 (ISV).

So the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria enjoyed peace. As it continued to be built up and to live in the fear of the Lord, it kept increasing in numbers through the encouragement of the Holy Spirit.

According to the verse, the church enjoyed peace throughout all nations? No. It was enjoyed throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria.

Therefore, the first century Christian Church was not present everywhere, not universal, not catholic.

Test of Evidence

I was surprised that there are some reckless assertions done on Beltran’s part, frankly saying. He even used evidences not that so much reliable. Using titles added by Catholic publishers cannot be used against us for we may simply question their materials’ neutrality. Even if you can read the name Catholic in the title of James writings, that couldn’t prove the validity of what Beltran defends for titles of the books in the New Testament were not found in early manuscripts.

Quick Fact: The original New Testament books did not have titles, section headings, or verse and chapter divisions. These were developed over the years as “helps for readers”. The Ammonian Sections were an early system of division written in the margin of many manuscripts. The Eusebian Canons was a series of tables that grouped parallel stories among the gospels. After 400 were used κεφαλαια.

Source: Script and Other Features, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Manuscript_construction

Examine his arguments.

Beltran wrote: See WHAT ACCUSATION IS BEING STATED BY THIS LIAR!! Christian ACCUSER by the name “Christian defender” is a CERTIFIED LIAR!!! Catholic could be found in old Editions of Latin Vulgate of Douay-Rheims Version!! (a more ANCIENT TRANSLATION than KJV and Ang Biblia)

JAMES 1:1 “Catholic Epistles of St. James the Apostles” (Douay Rheims Version)

ANOTHER ACCUSATION, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT GUILTY FOR BURNING VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE TO DEVIATE FROM BIBLICAL DOCTRINES, THE CHURCH HAS NEVER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO TEACH ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. It is also a LIE to say they burned believers who pursued to TRANSLATE BIBLE IN UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGES!! FOR YOUR INFORMATION, EVEN BEFORE THE TIME OF REFORMATION MADE BY LUTHER, THERE ARE ALREADY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE HOLY BIBLE, IT SO HAPPENED DURING THOSE TIMES, GUTTENBURG PRINTING PRESS WAS’NT ESTABLISHED YET!. What Comics you have got this information?

I have provided materials or links to suffice evidence on what I wrote. Sadly, our opponent failed to present counterevidence to refute what I presented. He, then, simply disproved my statements by just saying “it is not true”, “it’s a lie”, “he is a certified liar”, “we are not guilty…” His circulus in demonstrado or circular argument is too weak for he is trying to tell us that my statements are wrong by just saying it is not true. But, he has yet to tell us why it is not true.

Until now, he hasn’t still presented sound rebuttals regarding the issue of burning Bibles and believers. Nevertheless, we showed the inefficacy of our opponent’s circular argument.

On the last part of Beltran’s rebuttals, he ran down his church’s testimonies about the Bible. This could be quite not useful for his church’s testimonies having neutrality being disputed are not advisable to be used as counterevidence. Of course, somebody who believes Catholic Church will present their own testimonies in accordance to their faith, but not in debates or discussion. For then, self-serving can be avoided

Never used an ineffective attack twice

Another point to consider, our opponent obviously wants to substitute real arguments with repetition of what he already laid down unproven. We had disproved his chopping style, thus, no matter how many times he used the same refuted argument, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

Beltran wrote: hahahaha.. as proven Above, Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is biblical, if you wish, let us find it out:

(After this, he then will start again his chopping style).

Notice dear friends, Beltran told us that their church is biblical, their church is biblical, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can’t and won’t merit this discussion for him because he had given us no justification for his bald assertion!

Holic or Catholic?

I didn’t admit that the term Catholic means universal (or else, I am even not Christian Defender). I just quoted what Parabanog, another Mr. Arganiosa’s minion, wrote. Quoting something doesn’t necessarily means accepting or admitting the validity of a claim.

Beltran wrote: Now, in addition to your ignorance. CHRISTIANACCUSER ALREADY ADMIT that the term Catholic means “UNIVERSAL” now, do we have a proof that the term Universal Church is mentioned in the Scriptures? The answer is YES!! . however, in order to escape from the TRUTH. These guy attempts to debar the argument of calling the Church as UNIVERSAL or CATHOLIC (kath’oles) because , he said, “its not adjective”. Now let us give this guy A BIT of knowledge

Another thing, I think Beltran needs to review what I did say and what I didn’t say. I clearly said that the word “throughout” is not an adjective, it is an adverb so it is wrong to translate it as catholic which is an adjective. What is funny about Beltran? He changed what I said in order to refute then celebrated for his, we may say, poor eyes.

Beltran also drew verse/s/ from Latin translation to prove his theory. He read in Romans 16:23 the phrase universa ecclesiae which for him means catholic church. He then concluded that the term catholic church is Biblical.

But, let us examine the verse Beltran used to prove his theory in Latin rendition. (Romans 16:23)

Salutat vos Gaius hospes meus et UNIVERSA ECCLESIAE salutat vos

If you noticed, the word universa is used. If we will go back to the earlier language of the verse, we can see the discrepancy of the thought. In Greek rendition, the word used for whole or Latin word universa was holes, not kata holos.

Aspazetai humas gaiaos ho xenos mou kai tes ekklesias holes aspazetai humas erastos ho oikonomos tes poleos kai kourtaos ho adelphos

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom16.pdf

Beltran claims that the word catholic or universal came from the Greek word kata holos. Using Romans 16:23, and even Romans 1:8 in Greek, to support his theory will only bring incongruity of his stand. Notice that the Greek word for whole in the verse is holes, very much different from kata holos. It may not sound Catholic Church now but, holic church. Following Beltran’s argument will cause another name for his church – Holic Church (we don’t have idea if it is alcoholic or what).

Another Case of Eisegesis

Beltran tries to prove their church as being apostolic. He then defined apostolic without using any dictionary nor he exegetes, instead,  he only based on his preconceived idea. For him, it means that the church is founded upon the apostles. He didn’t get the definition but, he added his definition of apostolic to Ephesians 2:20. Observe.

Beltran wrote: “Apostolic” – implies that the Church is founded upon the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20)

On the contrary, in Ephesians 2:20, we can never read that the church was founded upon the apostles. (Ephesians 2:19-20)

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

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

This could be a serious mistake for Beltran. The household of God was not built upon the apostles but rather, it was built upon the foundation of the apostles.  In which, the foundation are not the apostles but our Lord Jesus Christ.(1 Corinthians 3:11)

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Notice the differences:

Right: built upon the foundation of the apostles (the foundation here are not the apostles)

Wrong: built upon the foundation who are the apostles

Terribly wrong: built upon the apostles (the foundation here are the apostles)

Therefore, using Ephesians 2:20 to prove Beltran’s church being apostolic is quite ineffective for he may have lapses in using verses with good faith and without incorporating his preconceived idea. In short, it is a forced definition.

Conclusion

We have provided counter evidences and arguments to rebuke Beltran’s rebuttals. We have a firm stand that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was neither been used by the apostles nor the early Christians for it only became official in 1870. It was made official by Catholic bishops and not by apostles. What was used by apostles as the official name of the church is Church of God. It must also be the church where we must be affiliated for God’s forgiveness, attention, listening, care are given to the church or people called by his name.

Some arguments of Beltran are not worthy to be refuted for they have no bearing at all and some are just trash talks. We don’t need to cut the twigs one by one if we already cut down the timber from the root.

Thus, our proposition still stand, the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is unbiblical. Beltran’s arguments are flawed.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

Fear Factor: A Challenge to Abraham Arganiosa

According to NBC.com, Fear Factor is an American stunt/dare reality game show wherein the contestants compete against each other to better and/or quicker than all the other contestants for a chance to win US $50,000. These people have learned to conquer their fear by doing those stunts. However, it seems that this is not evident with the situation of a Catholic Priest, Abraham Arganiosa. The word “Fear” is a relative term which was used in the bible in different contexts.

The Lord Jesus Christ told the Christians not to Fear those who can kill the body but fear  the one who can destroy both the body and soul in hell.

Douay-Rheims Bible

(Matthew 10:28)
And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

A Christian preacher does not fear those people who can kill and destroy his body which is the reason why he continues to preach despite of all the persecutions and trial he faces. This is exactly the same thing that the Apostle Paul experienced during the time of the First Century Christian Church.

(1 Corinthians 4:11-13)

Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

Christian preachers suffered physical trials to the point of loosing their own life. They give more importance to their duty to proclaim the gospel rather than their own life.

(Acts 20:24)

But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.


They don’t fear death as much as they don’t fear of losing in a debate because the Lord Jesus Christ has a promise to them.

(Luke 21:13-15)

And it shall turn to you for a testimony.  Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

This promise was fulfilled in the person of Bro. Eli Soriano. He had practically debated with people coming from various kinds of beliefs ever since he started preaching.

http://elisoriano.com/life/

On January 13, 2004, Bro. Eli registered the name Members Church of God International, the name the Church currently uses, in response to the growing number of members in other countries, both Filipinos and non-Filipinos. Despite the persecution presented by other religious groups, the congregation he leads remains steadfast.

Bro. Eliseo Soriano

The year 1980 marked Bro. Eli Soriano’s launching of his own radio program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path). Ang Dating Daanwas first aired on DWWA 1206 kHz, and then in DWAR, DZME, DZMB, DWAD, DZRD, DWAN, DZXQ, and in local stations in the country.

Bro. Eli Soriano was also invited as guest panelist in the DZBB program “Dis is Manolo and his GENIUS Family” (GENIUS stands for God Eternal News In Universal Salvation). Some of the other panelists were Bert Valinton and Domingo Filomeno of Seventh Day Adventist Church, Manuel Manzanilla of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Agustin Tabuñar of Iglesia Spiritista, Onnie Santiago of Iglesia ng Dios Espiritu Santo, Jess Patricio of Roman Catholic Church, Tydee Toloui of Bahai Faith, Miguel Inciong of Iglesia ng Espiritu Santo, Severino Taril, a Dr. Jose Rizal follower, Romulo Aldana, Mr. Khempis, Resty Policarpio, Aldon Tagumpay, and Rudy Natividad. For three consecutive years, Bro. Eli Soriano received the “Most Outstanding Minister” award in the GENIUS Family. No other minister was awarded the same after him.


Records of his discussions can be seen on National Television and on the Internet as well.

Bro. Eli was always successful on refuting the claims of these claiming to be God-sent preachers which is the reason why other preachers are now avoiding to engage with him in a debate. This is the same scenario that is now happening to the Catholic Priest, Abe Arganiosa. After writing an article on his blog, the members of the Church of God ask him if he will agree to engage in a debate with Bro. Eli Soriano.

Nevertheless, since you are the one who wrote this article and you claim to be Catholic Priest, will you accept a challenge for a debate with ADD on National Television?

The Catholic Priest, instead of giving a direct answer, answered back with a question.

Concerning Debate: Before I answer your question, I want to know who you are first and what is your relation with the ADD. I DO NOT ENTRUST MY ACTIVITIES ON STRANGERS LIKE YOU. The problem is that there are so many anonymous who are PRETENDING to be spokesperson of certain religions but in actuality they are mere PARASITES claiming to be part of such a body.

As courtesy, we informed him that his blog is closely monitored by the Church’s Central administration on his comment box. However, for whatever reason, he did not let it appear on the comment section of his blog. He then in turn resort to divert the challenge to other people.

Besides, before he can reach me he needs to face the prior challenges from INC, from Willy Santiago, from Atty. Marwil Llasos the Catholic Apologist who issued a public challenge to Mr. Razon.

Another funny thing about this Priest is when he wanted to appear that he accepts the challenge later on but gave improbable conditions.

DEFINITELY YES. I CAN EVEN DEBATE HIM FACE TO FACE RIGHT IN FRONT OF INC CENTRAL TEMPLE IN COMMONWEALTH IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. AND WE CAN EVEN INVITE THE JUDGE OF HIS SEXUAL CASES TO BE THE MODERATOR. HA, HA, HA… THAT WILL BE VERY EXCITING.

People who read these declarations on his blog began to wonder if these are  words of a Priest. Why will he give an improbable condition to debate in front of the INC temple? Any person in his right mind knows that it is not a rightful place for a debate to take place. The challenge to him was clearly a debate on National Television which he tries to evade. What he said is clearly an answer of a person who will not face Bro. Eli Soriano on a decent discussion regarding faith and religion.

Mister Arganiosa, instead resorted to give excessive sarcasm and insults which are elements of a Fallacy in Argument:  “Appeal to Mockery” instead of giving decent replies.

I noticed that one commenter has a similar way of writing like him. We can notice that Mr. Arganiosa loves to use braces in order to quote from another person just like this example.

[Or indeed Mr. Abe is such a blind person for he cannot see Bro. Eli.]

Similarly, a commenter named Parabanog also has the same style of writing.

[Now your writing style reverted back to the writing style of the Priest. Yes, I believe that you are the lame Priest with the support of Wilfredo Santiago’s Group. I will write a separate article to prove that. If you want to know my identity, that’s easy. Are you ready to debate with Bro. Eli on television with the facilitites of UNTV 37 and your own Catholic Television Program which is now possible? Or rather you will resort to improbable conditions to avoid it?]

In addition, checking the IP Address of Parabanog gives us a clue that he is in the same area where Mr. Arganiosa is.

He is in Legaspi using Smart Bro as his Internet Service Provider base on his IP Address. According to Mr. Argionsa, he is in Sorsogan which is very much near Legaspi. Both places are located in the Bicol Region. This gives me an idea that this Parabanog is also Mr. Arganiosa.

As recorded, this commenter also uses trash talks similar to that of the Catholic Priest. However, I also noticed that there is a sudden change on his writing style when he accused “The Old Path” as the path where evil people walk. Instead of using braces, he instead used semi-colon.

Christiandefender: Ginamit ang nakasulat sa Job 22:15. Sino ba ang nagsasalita sa talatang yan? Kung itataas natin ang pagbabasa sa naunang talata, sa talatang Job 22:1, makikita nating malinaw na ang nagsasalita sa talata ay si Eliphaz na Temanita.

He even used Job 4:8 to sustain his stand. It flashed immediately to my mind that this verse was used on one of our Church’s Thanksgiving topics during the time when Wilfredo Santiago was still inside the Church. Just like the flow of our Thanksgiving topic, he also used Gal. 6:7-8 to sustain his claim that the words of Eliphaz was right. However, the verse in Job 4:8 as it was enlightened before the Church of God are not really the words of Eliphaz. We can prove that on a separate article which may be written in Tagalog. It then came to my mind that this Catholic Priest, now uses the arguments feed by Wilfredo Santiago’s Group. In the first place, the Catholic Church never used these arguments in their Catechisms. The Catholic Church did not even teach that it is bad to face the east direction whenever praying. Those arguments just came from Wilfredo Santiago and is not originally Catholic.

My advice to Mr. Arganiosa is to conquer his fear to be be put to shame on a debate on National Television. MCGI has no record of murdering anyone specially our enemies. This is not a physical battle; Rather this is a spiritual battle which can be settled in a peaceful and civilize way.

Is the Name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church Biblical?

Having knowledge in names is inevitable especially in our time. In traveling, it is important to know the name of our destination, otherwise, we may probably lose our way. Also, we must not call a rose as gumamela, or a gumamela as rose. It could be misleading to believe the adage “a rose by any name is sweet still“ because there is a right term intended for all things, persons, places or events.

Obtaining a good name is a serious matter to consider. There are persons who were even forced to do extreme measures just to attain a good reputation. They even spend most of their wealth to clear and defend their name in the society. This kind of concern can be found in the Bible. In the writings of King Solomon in Proverbs chapter 22, verse 1, it says:

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.

And in Ecclesiastes 7:1,

A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.

In the religious world, we need to be more conscious and concern regarding the usage of names, titles or terms. We feel sorry for persons who don’t pay attention on this matter. Studying this important subject may consume time, but neglecting it may cause us to suffer disparaging consequences. Let us read Proverbs 14:12.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

We encourage you, dear friends and foes, to dedicate your patience and time in examining some issues about faith. Our subject will be particular in comparing titles such as Church of God and Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.

Church of God or Catholic Apostolic Roman Church?

The term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not familiar to early Christians. It was also never used and mentioned by the apostles in preaching the true congregation established by God. They used the term Church of God, instead.

To prove that, let us have a rundown of verses that contain the term Church of God.

(Act 20:28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

(1Co 1:2) Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

(1Co 10:32) Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

(1Co 11:22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

(1Co 15:9) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

(2Co 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

(Gal 1:13) For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

(1Th 2:14) For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

(2Th 1:4) So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

(1Ti 3:5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

(1Ti 3:15) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

There are eleven (11) verses in the Bible containing the term Church of God. On the other hand, we cannot read even a single verse; neither apostles nor early Christians used the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. We can check that with the aid of available digital Bible searchers.

Search ICAR

If their doctrines are truly apostolic, or if they are really obeying the will of God written in the Bible, why didn’t they use the title taught by the apostles which was written eleven times in the scriptures? Instead, they used titles unknown by the Bible.

An Attempt To Prove The Claim Biblically

An anonymous arguer named Parabanog, a Catholic member, voiced out his belief by drawing a verse from the Scriptures. He is one of the active advocates of Mr. Abe Arganiosa, a priest riding on issues against Bro. Eli just to gain popularity. Parabanog is aware that he cannot prove the authenticity of his church’s name by merely reading verses from Tagalog or any versions of the Bible; thus, he referred to the Greek Interlinear Bible to support such claim. Let us read the verse he used, in the Book of Acts written by St. Luke to Theophilus, in chapter 9 verse 31 of the scripture it says,

Acts 9:31 Greek Interlinear Bible

ho men oun ekklesia kata holos ho ioudaia, kai galilaia, kai samareia echo eirene oikodomeo kai poreuomai ho phobos ho kurios kai ho paraklesis ho agios pneuma plethuno

According to Parabanog, the word catholic was derived from two Greek words kata and holos. In Latin, it is catholicus borrowed from Greek word katholikos. The Greek adjective comes from the word katholou which means “generally”, “universally” based on kata (down) and holos (whole). Take note, katholikos is a Greek adjective according to Parabanog.

Parabanog wrote: “EKKLESIA KATA HOLOS. Sabi sa dictionary yung salitang catholic, galing sa dalawang salitang griyego: kata holos. Today’s Good Word comes to us from Latin catholicus “universal”, borrowed from the Greek katholikos. The Greek adjective comes from the word katholou “generally, universally”, based on kata “down, according to” + holos “whole”.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/an-analysis-of-a-malicious-blog-created-by-a-catholic-priest-fr-abe-arganiosa/#comments

If we will follow Parabanog’s explanation, it is very clear that the word catholic is not a translation of kata holos but rather a coined word. Having comparisons among other translations of the Bible, we can see that the term “throughout” or “throughout all” is used instead of “universally” or “generally”.

Compare.

(Las Sagradas Escrituras Version) Las Iglesias entonces tenían paz por toda Judea, Galilea y Samaria, y eran edificadas, andando en el temor del Señor; y con consuelo del Espíritu Santo eran multiplicadas.

(Latin Vulgate) ecclesia quidem per totam Iudaeam et Galilaeam et Samariam habebat pacem et aedificabatur ambulans in timore Domini et consolatione Sancti Spiritus replebatur

(BIBLIA) Sa gayo’y nagkaroon ng kapayapaan ang iglesia sa buong Judea at Galilea at Samaria palibhasa’y pinagtibay; at, sa paglakad na may takot sa Panginoon at may kaaliwan ng Espiritu Santo, ay nagsisidami.

(MKJV) Then, indeed, the churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and having been built up. And having gone on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were increased.

(ASV) So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied.

(KJV) Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

(ISV) So the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria enjoyed peace. As it continued to be built up and to live in the fear of the Lord, it kept increasing in numbers through the encouragement of the Holy Spirit.

Even in Spanish and Latin rendition, it was never translated as catholica nor catholicus as like what Parabanog claims. Thus, the accurate and correct translation for ekklesia kata holos is not Catholic Church but “church through out” or “church through out all”.

Another thing to notice, kata holos or throughout all is not an adjective, making it misleading to translate it as catholic. The word “throughout” is a preposition, usually used as an adverb. In Acts 9:31, words “throughout all” didn’t modify the word church but they indicate unto where the peace was being enjoyed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/throughout

Examine.

“So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace…” – ASV

In addition to that, it could be an anachronism if we believe that the church is universal during the first century A.D. As the word catholic implies, it could not be applicable during St. Paul’s time. The Catholic Church was not developed until several hundreds years have passed after the New Testament was written. There are countries that were not yet reached by the time St. Luke wrote Acts 9:31. Even in our present time, there are nations that do not have catholic churches still, especially in some parts of the Middle East.

http://www.studyworld.com/ferdinand_magellan.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108492.htm

If the right term for ekklesia kata holos is Catholic Church, why did their authorities not publish versions of the Bible where we can be able to read their coined term? Even Catholic translators did not and may never attempt to translate it to Catholic Church. Although, we know that their church, being wealthy and powerful, is capable of producing billions of versions of the Scriptures where they can correct Acts 9:31. The Catholic Church was also known for burning versions of the Bible to deviate from the Biblical doctrines which are against their personal desires. They even intentionally burned believers who pursued to translate the Bibles in understandable languages .

http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/articles/details.cfm?art=99

Thus, the title Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is not Biblical. It is just a mere eisegesis of someone who claims to be wise and prudent.

When did the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church originated?

Now, we have proven that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is not Biblical. Apostles never preached it and early Christians never mentioned it. Never, not even once. What we must believe and use is the name attributed to the owner – Church of God.

So, when did the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church originated? According to “Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed” by Rev. Clement H. Crock, page 191 says,

Catholic

It is very evident that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not known by first century Christians and never been taught by apostles for it was only officially used almost 1,700 years after Christ’s death. It was just formed upon the decisions of bishops at the Vatican Council.

Thus, we can safely believe that it neither originated from Christ nor apostles, for it has been used more than a millennium after the New Testament was written. It is a man-made belief.

Conclusion

In our discussion, we have provided evidences and arguments that refute the claim Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as being Biblical. The name was not used by Christ, apostles and early Christians. The Greek term kata holos must not be translated as catholic. It was not also used to describe the church in Acts 9:31 for kata holos is not an adjective. Anachronism will surely be committed for the “term universal church in first century A.D.” could be in the wrong historical period.

Thus, it is safe and better to believe and use the name Church of God instead of a name foreign to the Bible.

We rest our case.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!


Where should we confess our sins?

One of the sacraments teached by the Catholic Church is the sacrament of Confession wherein a member will tell everything that he has done to a priest. Later on the priest will tell the person to pray some repetitious prayer before the altar for his sins to be forgiven. However, why would you tell your sins to the priest? If you are suppose to confess your sins, the bible says that we should confess it to God and to the person whom we have offended.

 

(Psalms 32:5)

I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

(James 5:16)

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

According to history, confession has been use by the Catholic Church in order to suppress heresy. Rebels against the Church and the State were exposed because their members of their family would often go the Priest and confess of what they know.

Bro. Eli Soriano Sample Clips of Actual Debates VS. Catholics

In order to refute the claim of some Catholic Apologist who visits this blogsite, I decided to show some video clips uploaded on Youtube of some of the debates that we already have against Catholics.

Bro. Eli Soriano VS. Mr. Froilan Garza

Bro.Eli Soriano VS. MR. Rey Entila

Bro. Eli Soriano VS. Mr. Victor Villas

Bro. Eli Soriano VS. Mr. Ben Naluz

The funny thing about these Catholics is they never dared to let a Catholic Priest face Bro. Eli Soriano in a debate. Yet some of them have the guts to say that Bro. Eli Soriano is afraid to accept their challenge while their teaching have been proven to false so many times in the past.

A Reaction To The Comparison Made By A Catholic Acolyte, ALISTAIR JEPHTE CABUGSA MIGRIÑO CASEÑAS

A commenter on the article written by the Catholic Priest, Abe Arganiosa made a comparison between Bro. Eli Soriano and Pope Benedict XVI. Although most of the things written on his comment seems to mock the person of Bro. Eli Soriano, let us try to analyze his comments and use them to prove that Bro. Eli Soriano is God’s messenger in conjunction with the Holy Scriptures.

I have edited some of the things that he said for the sake of decency.

1. Aegis-Judex said:
“Father, Brother, allow me to make things simple between us of the Holy Church and the ADD infidels; a comparison of leaders, perhaps?”
Benedict XVI : IMPORTED
Bro. Eli: lokal

It seems that this dude is a fan of imported products which is the reason why he favors someone who is imported. Base on the scriptures, there was a little city that was besieged by a King but the deliverer of that city turns out to be a poor wise man who is also a citizen of that city.

(Ecclesiastes 9:14-15)

There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.

If we are going to study the parallelism of this scriptural story with what is suppose to happen today, we can safely realize that the deliverer of Filipinos is also a Filipino and not a German.

2. Aegis-Judex said:

Benedict XVI: INTERNATIONAL CELEBRITY

Bro. Eli: INTERNATIONAL FUGITIVE

To correct what as written by Judex, Bro. Soriano is not even convicted of any crime so he cannot be called a fugitive. He is simply an experienced accused because our enemies of faith keeps hurling false accusations against him ever since he started preaching. Being accused is a part of a Christian preacher’s life. It was forewarned by the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

(John 16:1-4)

These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.


In fact, this was the experience of the Apostle Paul.

(1 Corinthians 4:13)

Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

The Apostles did not even enjoy the pleasure of being an International Celebrity wherein they are not being defamed or accused. What they experience are persecutions, defamations and trials which is the same thing that Bro. Eli Soriano experiences.

3. Aegis-Judex said:

Benedict XVI: highly educated, with various doctorate degrees

Bro. Eli: high school only, did not finish 3rd year high

Does a person have to be educated with various doctorate degrees to be a messenger of God? The Apostles of Christ were even unlearned man.

(Acts 4:13)

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Educational attainment is not a prerequisite to be called a messenger of God. Remember that most of the Apostles did not have the education as high as the Pope in Rome; But they become wise regarding divine wisdom because they were able to learn that from the best teacher who is our Lord Jesus Christ.

4. Aegis-Judex said:

Benedict XVI: HEAD OF STATE

Bro. Eli: no state- tago ng tago

The messengers of God in the Christian dispensation did not become Head of State. They don’t even have a certain dwelling place.

(1 Corinthians 4:11)

Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;

5. Aegis-Judex said:

Benedict XVI: WILL DIE FOR HIS FLOCK

Bro. Eli: HIS FLOCK WILL DIE

(JPII almost did, TWICE. Can Eli boast of the same thing?)

Bro. Eli almost die twice because of severe beating from INC deacons after his debates with INC ministers. Until now, his life is being threatened but it did not prevent him from spreading the word of God. He is ready to preach the word of God despite these threats because he know that it is part of a Christian Preacher’s life.

(John 16:2)

They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Remember the record of the Catholic Church indicates that they killed innocent people thinking that they are doing it for God’s service. The late John Paul II even beg for forgiveness because of this historical fact.

A Christian Preacher is ready to die but he is not ready to kill anyone specially his enemies. If there is a battle that a Christian Preacher faces, it is a battle against false teachings and not a physical battle. Bro. Eli Soriano exactly does that as evident to his recent debate which won the soul of a Native South American Preacher.

Let us always remember that a Christian Preacher is an unprofitable servant.

(Luke 17:10)

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

As unprofitable servants, they did not become Heads of State, they are targets of persecutions and they don’t necessarily have high educational attainment.

The Fallacies in Arguments of Abraham Arganiosa

Reading his reply on the comments section of his blog will give as a glimpse of what Fallacy in Argument really is. Let me point out some of the examples of fallacies written by Abraham Arganiosa who claims to be a Priest and an Educator.

According to  nizkor.org, “A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.”

Let us try to analyze his fallacies with the guidance of biblical basis in order to know if what he is trying is right or wrong. The following are examples of his fallacies.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

OUR PRESENT POPE, BENEDICT XVI, IS CONSIDERED ALL OVER THE WORLD AS ONE OF THE BEST THEOLOGIANS OF ALL TIME. HE CAN SPEAK SEVERAL LANGUAGES FLUENTLY AND HAS SERVED AS PROFESSOR IN GREAT UNIVERSITIES OF THE WORLD.

“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claimis reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.”

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Not because the Pope in Rome has the authority and some good attributes base on human standards, what he say are all correct. Christians must adhere to the sole authority inside the Christian Church who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Colossians 1:18)

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

In fact, the father in heaven instructed Christians to listen to him.

(Luke 9:34-35)

While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.


Catholics tends to listen to the words and teachings of the Pope without analyzing whether what he says is right or wrong simply because of his authority over them which is not right. They even have the courage to belittle another person who contradicts what their Pope is saying.

UNLIKE SORIANO NA PINABILI LANG NG SUKA SA KANTO. THAT IS WHY HIS DEBATES ARE ON THE STREETS AND WITH PEOPLE WHOSE CALIBER ARE AS CHEAP AS HIM.

First of all, Abraham Arganiosa must know that the debates of brother Eli are not done just in the streets. His debates are broad casted on radio, television and in the Internet.  An example of a recent debate has earned the soul of an Assembly of God Pastor which can be seen on Youtube.com.

To say that brother Eli just debates on the streets with people whose caliber is cheap is blatantly stupid. Abraham Arganiosa clearly used the wrong choice of words on his comment. However, if he thinks that his own caliber is not cheap, he might as well agree for a live debate on National Television.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem


HA, HA, HA… KUYA DANIEL RAZON!!! HA, HA, HA… WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN WE FIND THAT THE BELOVED NEPHEW OF GOD’S MESSENGER MUST BE CALLED ‘KUYA’? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? HA, HA, HA…

THAT IS ANOTHER SATANIC DOCTRINE. WALA YAN SA BIBLIA. KUYA DAW… HE, HE, HE… KUYAKOY NG SIYOKOY. KUMAIN NA LANG KAYO NG TIKOY NI INGKONG UNGGOY.

“An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the authorof or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).”

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

I would like to applaud the statement of Abraham Arganiosa that refers to brother Eli as the messenger of God base on his question. “WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN WE FIND THAT THE BELOVED NEPHEW OF GOD’S MESSENGER MUST BE CALLED ‘KUYA’?”

However the succeeding statement is already Ad Hominem; An attack on the person which does not substantiate any argument. Another funny thing with this Priest is, he questions the way we call brother Daniel as our “big brother” or “kuya” while he is called “father” by his parishioners which violates what Christ teaches to Christians.

(Matthew 23:9)

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

While it is prohibited for Christians to call no man father upon the earth, we don’t see any prohibition to call no man as our big brother or “kuya”.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule


Thank you. Please don’t infest this Blog with links related to your materials. We do not accept junks here. The Catholic Church has its own CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. So don’t pretend that you are more scholarly than us. WE RUN HUNDREDS OF UNIVERSITIES ALL OVER THE WORLD AND OUR SCHOLARS ARE FIRST RATE. Unlike your so-called scholars na pinulot lang sa tabi tabi. Scholars kuno.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

The priest, Abraham Arganiosa was referring to the link which I posted on his blogsite which Bro. Eli Soriano wrote to prove how false the Catholic Church is.

http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/the-roman-catholic-church-is-not-the-true-church-of-god/

The priest mocked the article which Bro. Eli Soriano wrote which does not really prove that the article was wrong. The article presented documents which came from the Vatican itself as proofs of it’s erroneous teachings like the following:

1. The Document which proves that they believe that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

2. The history of the Catholic Church which proves that they have unfairly judged the ‘outsiders’.

Perhaps this cruelty is the result of their belief that there is no salvation outside their church.

3. The Catholic Church had a Notorious Pope.

Bro. Eli said:

I want you to note that this magazine came from inside the Vatican itself. That this pope is “one of the most notorious”, meaning, there were so many of them! Will it be alright if I say that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of God?

These are just some of the examples of fallacies in Arguments that I can see on Abraham Arganiosa’s blog. Evidently, by reading through it I can write some separate articles to disprove them. I have proven that there are fallacies on his arguments and it is very easy to discern right now who is telling the truth and who  is lying. I believe that in this blog debate, good still triumphs over (for lack of a better term) evil.

God Bless You!