The Advantage of Being Biblical: (Part 1) Response against Immanuel Cruz’ Attacks

By Heaven’s Knight

Filipinos are known for their hospitality. Most of them, if you visit their home, have the unusual desire to please their guest. Though their food is inadequate for the rest of their family, guests are automatically invited for their meal. Most Filipinos also prepare the best room and bed for their visitors and they even provide clothes and other amenities for their guests. They are warm and generous in entertaining visitors. They love to have fun and most have sense of humor; they love to joke even surrounded by worst conditions. They want their visitors to feel comfortable with their family.

This good trait of Filipinos, sometimes, is used by opportunists as a gateway to instill their hidden motives. These deceivers want to gain for their self-interest out of others unawareness. They are like the werewolf of the known children’s story, Little Red Riding Hood, who wants to take advantage of the girl’s innocence. Though, funny to say, it’s just a fairy tale, werewolves in our time are reality. Especially in the religious world, it is very rampant. Jesus Christ, as early as 30 A.D., already warned us of these wolves disguise in white robes. (Matthew 7:15)

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Beware of false prophets! Jesus Christ said. Hospitality is good but being watchful and being aware is very important. Very important here must be taken to mean of high regard, for not paying attention to it will mean life and death. By life and death we mean not only the physical life and death here on earth, but that also involves eternal life and second death, Biblically speaking. So, we need to examine our faith, we need not to be like Little Red Riding Hood, we are not children anymore. Awareness could be one of the most effective weapons we need so not to be deceived by these wolves, by these false prophets.

Let us be Biblical dear readers!

It was prophesied in the Bible that false prophets will gone out of this world. Even during the time of Apostle John, as early as before the dawn of the first century, they already sprouted like mushrooms. (1 John 4:1)

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

These false prophets will privily bring in destructible heresies, or false teachings. (2 Peter 2:1)

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Therefore, it is wise not to easily accept belief, or if we already have our belief, it is also wise to check if we have the fullness of truth in our faith. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

When it comes to faith, examining the fullness of its truth is inevitable. There could also be a basis or instrument to get the precision of the faith we believe. In carpentry, a skilled carpenter does not only rely on estimation but he uses tools such as metric ruler, level and others to get and to give the exact measurement needed for his work. An orchestra, to achieve the harmonious music they want to blend, uses piece to serve as its guide aside from its conductor. Without them, musicians could not be organized in performing their work. So, a right basis is very important in every aspect of our life — more so in religion.

If we want to ask something about law, we seek answers from book of law. Same as if we want to gain knowledge about medicines, we prefer reading book of medicines. And if we want to learn Christian faith and doctrines, it is better to read the Bible as a basis. According to Apostle St. Paul, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16).

That is the reason why from the start of our discussion with other detractors, your servant  was already basing answers from scriptures. If we are to discover the certainty of the church where we belong, it is wise to consult Biblical passages; the true church was explained therein. If a faith is not Biblical, what does Apostle Paul said regarding this?

(1 Corinthians 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.

If we want to be consistent with apostles’ teachings, we must not therefore exceed from what was written. St. Paul wants us to have faith in what was written and those can be profitable also as a basis of faith. St. Paul also warned Christian that if ever they will encounter preachers that will bring them other doctrines, they must reject them. (Galatians 1:8, 6)

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.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

As early as St. Paul’s time, there are preachers who instill false doctrines not written in the Bible, doctrines different from what apostles taught. And that was when they are still alive, how much more in our time?

Beliefs not supported by scriptures, beliefs based on human philosophies, beliefs that were only man-made such as dogmas, tenets, tradition, etc. will turn worshiping to nothing. (Mark 7:7-8)

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Therefore, it is wise to be Biblical to have a reliable Christian faith. If a faith is not Biblical, there could be a risk holding that faith for God’s word was written in the Bible.

The proposition and the counterproposition

It was almost two months since we invited Mr. Abe Arganiosa, a Catholic priest, to confront Bro. Eli Soriano. The priest chose to  spread rumors via internet against Bro. Eli Soriano. Bro. Eli, the presiding minister of Members, Church of God International (MCGI), is known as a debater who already faced different preachers, pastors and ministers.

Whenever someone is challenging Bro. Eli in a debate, he is willing to defend his faith, even if it seems no way to have a discussion. Distance, time and even threats are not hindrance to Bro. Eli in engaging debates;  he is using the advantage of available technologies.

Sadly, those weeks that had past was used by Mr. Abe Arganiosa in making excuses and trash talking just to evade from a formal confrontation. Though, he already promised to initiate a negotiation with Bro. Eli, that promise until now remains a promise.

Mr. Arganiosa said: WHO SAYS THAT I DON’T WANT TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE DEBATE. I WANT TO NEGOTIATE. BUT SORIANO AND I MUST BE THE ONE TO TALK IT OVER.

Now, Mr. Arganiosa’s minions are busy attacking MCGI’s doctrine but they have failed to establish their faith. One of this is Parabanog, he has tacitly proposed that the Catholic Church’s name is Biblical. We, then presented rebuttals against his proposition and tacitly made counterproposition — the name Church of God is the name taught by apostles,  not the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church (CARC).

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/ekklesia-kata-holos-catholic-church-can-this-be-considered-as-the-rightful-translation-2/

Parabanog has failed to make a rebuttal against our counterproposition but other rebuked for his place – Beltran, another Arganiosa’s minion. Like Mr. Arganiosa, Beltran is fond of using trash talking and he has also failed to prove that the name CARC is Biblical.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/is-the-name-catholic-apostolic-roman-church-biblical-part-2-a-response-to-beltran%E2%80%99s-rebuttals/

Suddenly, someone seems wanting to grab the limelight from Arganiosa’s minion – Immanuel Cruz, a Catholic. He made the third rebuttal on the issue about church’s name. We asked Manny courtesy to his co-believer if he wants to answer questions directed to Beltran and answer it himself, instead. But he didn’t ask any permission either to Parabanog or Beltran. We don’t even have idea if Manny wants to replace Mr. Arganiosa in confronting Bro. Eli. But Manny may back up the priest if he wants to confront Bro. Eli.

The problem with Manny, it seems he hasn’t review first the flow of the discussions. He must review first our discussions against Parabanog and Beltran. He engaged in a dispute that doesn’t belong to him. That will remind us of this verse. (Proverbs 26:17)

He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

The proof of that let us read his careless remarks regarding my assertion.

Manny said: Indeed, we must not exceed what the apostles taught us! St. Paul used the phrase ‘church of God’ eleven times, as you claimed. Then you concluded that this is the “official name” of the Church of Jesus. Obviously you did not notice it, but your conclusion is not merited by the premise that you laid. In those verses, Paul did not say that “church of God” is an official name! (It’s not even capitalised! Didn’t you see it?)

Sadly, that isn’t how I laid my arguments but Manny had his own version of concluding it. I presented eleven verses containing the words “Church of God” or “church of God” to show that it is Biblical. To prove that, I even entitled my articles: “Is the Name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church Biblical?” I think he hadn’t notice it from the start. That is the problem of someone who doesn’t know how to ask courtesy for engaging in a fight not belonging to him.

Manny can again check how I presented it by reviewing my article so that he can be more careful.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/is-the-name-catholic-apostolic-roman-church-biblical-part-2-a-response-to-beltran%E2%80%99s-rebuttals/

Rebuttal against Rebuttal

We are talking about Biblical issues that require Biblical proofs. Is the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church Biblical or not? If not, why do Catholics use it as their official name? Where did they get their basis? What basis should we use to prove the truthfulness of the Catholic Church’s name? History? History of whom? If that could be the basis, history itself can also prove the edacity of the Catholic Church.

Link: The Roman Catholic Church Is Not The True Church Of God

Thus, the common denominator to be used in discussing Christian faith is the Bible. Proving a Christian faith outside the Bible is like a boxer fighting outside the ring. We are proud we have Manny Pacquiao who knows this rule in boxing, but it’s a shame we have Manny Cruz who doesn’t know the rule of spiritual warfare and courtesy.

But let’s go to his allegations. Manny believes that the official name of the church is not an issue to the apostles; he doesn’t believe that the term “Church of God” is an official name.

Manny said: Indeed, we must not exceed what the apostles taught us! St. Paul used the phrase ‘church of God’ eleven times, as you claimed. Then you concluded that this is the “official name” of the Church of Jesus. Obviously you did not notice it, but your conclusion is not merited by the premise that you laid. In those verses, Paul did not say that “church of God” is an official name! (It’s not even capitalised! Didn’t you see it?)

He said St. Paul didn’t mention that the name “church of God” is an official name in the verses I laid (he even asserted that it was not even capitalized). This argumentum ad ignorantium or argument to ignorance, where he assumes something is false simply because it hasn’t proven yet or, better say, he is not aware of my explanation, neither prove his stand nor refute mine.

He believes that the church during St. Paul’s time has no official name. We, then, asked proof of his accusation but he just went on an escape, not an answer.

Manny said: Your question is really asking this, “can you PROVE in the Bible that the Church has NO offical name?”

Well, from the scientific point of view, the question is grossly WRONG! It should never be asked in the first place…

It is not true that my question is grossly wrong. Why? I’m in a position to ask: where can you read that apostles said there is no official name for the church? That is because I already presented arguments, and even affirmative questions, to build my prima facie case.

Manny even accused me of violating some scientific principles.

Manny said: Well, from the scientific point of view, the question is grossly WRONG! It should never be asked in the first place. Because it VIOLATES a basic scientific principle: You do not prove that something does not exist. In other words, you cannot prove the negative. Proof is always aimed at the positive, the negative statement comes only at the end, as a result perhaps or a conclusion of the positive process of PROVING (the existence of something).

It seems that Manny forgot some rules in argumentation. Burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proponent can shift the burden of proof to the opponent by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden of proof generally rests with the proponent, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

We have built our prima facie case in our first and second topic, sadly, Manny didn’t get the point. Whenever he says there is no official name for the church, he is now making accusations. Burden of proof was now then shifted in his position. Hence, burden of rebuttal.

(Reference: The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Francisco M. Africa, The Burden of Proof and the Counterproposition, page 21)

Official name of the church from the highest authority

Catholic authorities believe that the name of their church didn’t come from Jesus. It can be read in their publication Ang Iglesia ni Kristo at Iba’t Ibang Sektang Protestante, written by F. Juan Trinidad, S. J., page 25.

Photobucket

(Translation: The name “Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” didn’t come from Jesus. But as the English saying goes: “A rose by any other name will be sweet still.”)

The basis of their belief regarding their church’s name is an English saying. It is very clear that it is neither Biblical nor it was taught by Christ. That could be true for the New Testament was already finished more than 1700 years, or Christ already ascended to heavens almost 1840 years before the name CARC was only made official and accepted. It was not God who made CARC  an official name but bishops of Vatican.

Catholic

Why then we believe that the name Church of God is the official name, not CARC? We believe that it is official on the basis that no teachings came from God that is unofficial. (Psalms 119:160)

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

We also believe the name “Church of God” is official; by “official” I mean of or relating to an office or a post of authority.  Regarding church’ name, “Church of God” is a name acknowledged and used by authorities such as St. Paul. In this case, unofficial is the antonym, and variously may mean informal, unrecognized, or unfamiliar to authorities, or unacknowledged. That rightly fits to CARC.

I certainly believe that God is the highest authority to follow. Primacy is owned by God, not of Rome. (1 Chronicles 29:11)

Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

Whatever God says, we respect it believing it carries authority. (Luke 1:37 ASV)

For no word from God shall be void of power.

For this reason, God’s words are official and authorized. No man can supersede it.

St. Paul wrote teachings under the commandment of the highest authority, not under any Pope in Rome. (1 Corinthians 14:37)

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

It can be read in the scriptures, including St. Paul’s writings, the term Church of God. Apostles’ writings were written under the commandment of the highest authority; therefore, the term Church of God was written upon following the highest authority making it official.

In this way, it is safe to believe that the term Church of God is the official name of the church, not Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. We use the definite article “the” not to omit other names used by apostles; but to omit names not known to apostles like the one being proposed in 1870.

It is not our problem if Manny believes that apostles were not called officials or, we should say, persons of authority.

Manny said: Well, this adds to the many careless remarks from you. The apostles were never called “officials” or “authority of the Bible.”

He may not call them officials but indeed, they are persons of authority. Our Lord Jesus Christ told apostles that those who don’t listen to them will also mean not listening to the highest authority. (Luke 10:16)

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

The fallacies of Manny Cruz

Manny may assert his argumentum ad ignorantium saying there is no official name because Paul didn’t say it. We must not then accept his refutations for he also didn’t say that it is his official answer. It is a waste of time arguing against someone who doesn’t have official belief. He has no official belief because he didn’t say it. That is if we will follow Manny’s argument.

St. Paul didn’t even say it is commanded not to use prohibited drugs. Does it follow, believing Manny’s argument, such drugs are allowed? He may not read it but with God’s help we can prove it Biblically that it is prohibited to use marijuana, shabu etc.

Manny also believes that it is not an official name for it was not capitalized.

Manny said: Paul did not say that “church of God” is an official name! (It’s not even capitalised! Didn’t you see it?) No, Paul never said it.

Sorry to say, this assertion could not be convincing. For one thing, the word God has a capital letter, it is a proper name. How about the name Church of God in the Bible? Is it true that it is not a proper, official or technical name for it was not been capitalized as it was written in the Bible? This is in the presumption that the term Church of God is an official name if it is capitalized.

Let us then follow Manny’s assertion. Let us read versions of Bible that most Catholics use – the Bibliyang Katoliko. (II Corinthians 1:1)

Si Pablo na apostol ni Cristo Jesus sa kalooban ng Diyos, at ang kapatid na si Timoteo, Sa Iglesia ng Dios na nasa Corinto at sa lahat ng banal na nasa buong Acaya.

Let us also read in the Spanish Bible, a version of a Bible that most Catholics use.

Spanish Bible (Las Sagradas Escrituras Version)

The Acts 20:28

Por tanto mirad por vosotros y por todo el rebaño en que el Espíritu Santo os ha puesto por obispos, para apacentar la Iglesia de Dios, la cual ganó por su sangre.

(I Corinthians 1:2)

a la Iglesia de Dios que está en Corinto, santificados en Cristo Jesús, llamados a ser santos, y a todos los que invocan el Nombre del Señor nuestro, Jesús, el Cristo, en cualquier lugar, Señor de ellos y nuestro;

(I Corinthians 10:32)

Sed sin ofensa ni a judíos, ni a gentiles, ni a la Iglesia de Dios;

(I Corinthians 11:22)

A la verdad, ¿no tenéis casas en que comáis y bebáis? ¿O menospreciáis la Iglesia de Dios, y avergonzáis a los que no tienen? ¿Qué os diré? ¿Os alabaré? En esto no os alabo.

(I Corinthians 15:9)

Porque yo soy el más pequeño de los apóstoles, que no soy digno de ser llamado apóstol, porque perseguí la Iglesia de Dios.

(II Corinthians 1:1)

Pablo, apóstol de Jesús, el Cristo, por la voluntad de Dios, y el hermano Timoteo, a la Iglesia de Dios que está en Corinto, juntamente con todos los santos que están por toda la Acaya:

(Galatians 1:13)

Porque ya habéis oído acerca de mi conducta en otro tiempo en el judaísmo, que perseguía sobremanera la Iglesia de Dios, y la destruía;

(I Thessalonians 2:14)

Porque vosotros, hermanos, habéis sido imitadores en Cristo Jesús de las Iglesias de Dios que están en Judea; que habéis padecido también vosotros las mismas cosas de los de vuestra propia nación, como también ellos de los judíos;

(I Timothy 3:5)

( porque el que no sabe gobernar su casa, ¿cómo cuidará de la Iglesia de Dios?);

We can notice from these verses of a Bible commonly used by most Catholics, the term Iglesia de Dios (Church of God) was capitalized. But Manny, a Catholic, says it was not even capitalized. Of course, we don’t need to mention him that he should wear a pair of reading glasses and read Catholic Bibles.

More so, we hadn’t included yet versions of Bible such as Magandang Balita Biblia, Tagalog, German, Dutch, French, Indonesian etc. for it will only become lengthy.

Anyway, we don’t blame him for he really cannot prove that apostles believe the church has no official name. That belief doesn’t exist in the Bible. It is just our opponent’s belief, not of apostles. He believes of something that doesn’t exist. Thus, like his saying “You do not prove that something does not exist.”

We can also say “You cannot prove Biblically a belief that is not written in the Bible.”

We have to this point been discussed the advantage of being Biblical and having Biblical awareness for there are false prophets gone out of this world. We also emphasized that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is not Biblical. It did not come from God, it is a man-made belief. Rather, what was familiar to apostles is the term Church of God. But next we need to consider the question, why do we use the term Members, Church of God International? Is it Biblical? Is it foreign to apostles like the term CARC?

(To be continued…)



14 Responses

  1. This is a good article. Manny told me that he does not represent Abe Arganiosa in this blog and he does not subscribe to his trash talks. However, he wants to defend the Catholic Church. I’m just not sure if he is authorized to represent the Catholic Religion like Abe Arganiosa who is a Priest.

  2. In my opinion, we can’t take that hurt from Manny Cruz since, maybe he is born as a Catholic. and someone reading or seeing his church being attack, obviously, he will defend it. Just like me, when i first heard Bro. Eli, i don’t believe at him first. But rebutting us like that and saying this that we don’t say, I think we must answer back! I hope this Manny Cruz will be enlighten with this post, i hope part 2 comes fast

  3. this is a bias blog..you are deleting my queries..
    …your church is Church of God International…the one mentioned in the bible was Church of God…you added the word International…why?

    • You better get your facts straight dude! The name of our Church which can be seen on our official website is Members Church of God International. We did not add the word “International”. It has a biblical basis of course. Are you asking a sincere question or are you here to debate with us? We have accepted your queries here and it’s your responsibility to give some respect when asking questions. Otherwise you are not different from Abe Arganiosa.

    • Mr. Ozner,

      This is just the Part 1 of our discussion, I believe you can have patience about your inquiry.

      Regarding deletion of queries, if ever, remember that this is a well-regulated blog and our immune system are just acting accordingly against some impurities. We have all the rights to protect our body and to clean others’ mess.

      Little arguments without bearings and trash talkings are not well-entertained here, sorry for that.

    • Ozner’s queries were never deleted. He just have to wait to get it approved.

    • So that’s it. Patience is a virtue.

  4. Are these pretenders are men enough to accept a challenge of debate with Bro Eli?

    I doubt it very much.

    Jeremias 51:30
    The mighty men of Babylon have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.

  5. may panira na nman sina Fr. Abe! haha, natatawa na lang ako, pero maganda bro. christiandefender, sagutin na din ntin toh, naghahasik na nman kasi ng lagim ang mga kampon ni satanas! haha!

    http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/02/by-what-authority-did-ang-dating-daan.html#comment-form

    “Bihirang balita’y magtapat, magkatotoo ma’y marami ang dagdag! – swak na swak sa kanila! haha!”

    • Those arguments are not new to me. What these people fail to see is that the church of God in the bible were also called by other names. It does not necessarily follow that the church of God is changing its name. That is a stupid claim.

  6. kindly type in your computer please …church of God International…and tell how many times it appear…

    • Have you considered typing the phrase Catholic Church in your computer just like what we did?

  7. christiandefender,
    Can you please explain the biblical basis of the added word’ International’.
    Thanks

  8. @ Winnie Ibe
    Please go to this link https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/a-response-to-the-ignorant-accusation-of-abe-arganiosa-of-changing-names-and-establishing-a-church/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: