The INC re-established, why from the Philippines?

If the Church had indeed apostatized, why from the Philippines?

When I was 10, mother was making a living in the capital town of Basco in Batanes as housemaid so I had to transfer school. From Ivana, I had to enroll at Basco West Central School for that year. In order to survive that time, I was employed to a very good Aberilla Family which was located just opposite the Batanes Hospital and facing a residential house rented by the Iglesia ni Cristo as its worship place.

I was so ignorant then. I thought they're one of us having a minor different teachings about Christ and the Church. I thought it's not a big deal. But then I was wrong. It made me think seriously that both cannot be true at the same time. I haven't heard that name before but considering Felix Manalo as an angel, I have to roll up my sleeves and begin to work. Although I could easily run to a priest's explanation but I thought, working out on my own would be more rewarding later on.

Who's Felix Manalo?

According to them, his angelic position was prophesied Isaiah 43:5-6 ("The north will give them up and the south cannot keep them back; for God said, "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back! 'Bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the ends of the earth--" )'Felix Manalo' who was to be the prophesied 'angel' to restore Christ's 'apostatized' Church.

Since they do not have any available official website or any printed official teachings such as the Official Catholic Catechism, I have to rely on third party sources that seem to be most reliable. According to , their explanation of the North was the Protestants from North America and the South refers to Catholics from Spain). Thus, the Far East refers to the Philippines. Amazing! How did they come up with that explanation?

My curiosity about Iglesia ni Cristo and other Protestant sects and cults didn't happen until I was in college. With some of 'uninformed' Catholics converting to 'Born-Again' and other modern day sects, I had to weigh down it's basic teachings, think and study about my Catholic belief before I'd jump off the boat.

If indeed the Catholic Church has apostatized then definitely one of them is saying the truth. Raised in a Catholic Ivatan tradition, I never had any encounter with Protestants. Normally, I'd have apostatized from the Church and join their group but my little faith saved me from falling into a more serious error.

We had only two Bibles at home, the Ivatan Translation of the NT which was old with almost dilapidated pages due to frequent typhoon. I also have an pocket Bible from Gideon which was freely distributed by some members of that sect.

Reading the Bible was part of my leisure, not part of my spiritual exercises. I memorized only two Bible verses in English. John 3:16 is one and Romans 16:16 is second. The latter is the Bible verse often used by INC.

"[G]reet one another with a holy kiss, all the churches of Christ greet you," says the English version.

"[M]agbatian kayo ng banal na halik, lahat ng iglesia ni Cristo binatati kayo," says the Tagalog version.

"You see, the name "iglesia ni Cristo" is in the Bible whereas the Catholic Church isn't," as they use to brag.

As they claim, Christ's true Church must have a name and it must be biblical. Romans 16:16 was the answer to that. On the contrary, the Catholic Church was not even spelled out in the Bible so it must not be Christ's true Church.

As ignorant as I was, I could have been easily persuaded by that line and be converted right away to Iglesia ni Cristo however I noticed that there was a serious problem with the word 'churches' (iglesia). Ordinary folks wouldn't mind it at all but this was the Bible. I just couldn't take for granted the rules of grammar in understanding the Bible. As I thought, the Bible wasn't written just for the sake of writting but it was written with all its literary rules and grammar. The small letter "c" for churches ("i" for iglesia) would never be considered as 'Proper Name" as far as the rules of grammar is concern. That's deliberately deceiving the ignorant of their ignorance.

They are right, the name church(es) of Christ (iglesia ni Cristo) appeared in the Bible but it was not Church(es) of Christ (or Iglesia ni Cristo). So far, the Four Marks of the Church differentiating it from the false ones contain more astute, logical, biblical, historical, fact-based explanation than their single Biblical verse quotation explaining the whole history of the Church to our modern times.

Soon, other questions emerged and the more I question their beliefs, the more I understand the Catholic Church's teachings.

Why 'Iglesia ni Cristo"?

Why it's written in Tagalog?

Why not use 'Church of Christ' when it's being referred to in English?

This could be answered by going back to its history.

The Iglesia ni Cristo was founded by Felix Manalo in Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila in July 27, 1914. After joining numerous Protestant sects, doubted his faith, joined the masonry, he finally settled down and built his own church, registered it under the Philippine Government, named it "Iglesia ni Cristo" (not Church of Christ) protected under Registered Patent Trademarks. According to its registration, the 'Iglesia ni Cristo" (not Church of Christ while I am writing in English) is a Corporation Sole owned and managed by Felix Manalo as its founder.

Using the English translation "Church of Christ" would pose a serious violation of its Registered Patented Trademarks against H. G. White who first registered 'Church of Christ" (in English).

That explains why you see the English translation inside an open-closed parenthesis whenever they translate their church name to English (see below photo).


Perhaps Manalo was using the Tagalog Version of the Bible when he founded his church. If he had used the Spanish Version, he might have registered it "Iglesia de Cristo."

Again, according to history, the Iglesia ni Cristo was founded 94 years ago (as of year 2008 A. D.) while the Catholic Church traces it's origin back from the First Century (read History of teh Catholic Church)spanning almost 2,000 years in existence. Logically it dates back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Seriously, historians are unanimous with this fact.

If they can easily manipulate and disregard the rules of grammar in the Bible, there is a big possibility as I thought that they could do it with equal easiness
in quoting the Bible. That would further damaged the ignorance of their prospect converts from Catholicism. This led me to consider studying 'personally' about the Bible.

The Bible is the written Word of God. That's certainly true. However with hundreds if not thousands of Bible Translations circulating today, what guarantee can we have that what we are reading is closest to the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and Latin Vulgate versions of the Bible?

I may sound obscure but there are those Christians who are afraid to question the Bible, how it was formed and how it came into existence? All they thought, since it's God's Word, questioning its origin would be like questioning the authority of God. Of course this is not true. We can question the origin of the Bible in order for us to have a clear understanding how, when, what, where was the Bible written for.

The Bible didn't fall from heaven nor God commanded prophets and Apostles to write a Bible. He simply told them to follow what was told them by their forefathers. It was by oral Tradition that we have this faith in One God and the Bible was the effect of that oral Tradition put into writing. In other words, the Church came first and then the Bible.

Serious charges from Islam's Sacred Book (Qu'ran) saying that the Torah and the Gospel ceased to be reliable after it was translated to many languages which eventually lost it's truthfulness. The same reason why the Qu'ran is never allowed to be translated without it's Arabic original script alongside with the translation.

Of course we cannot do that. If we do so, we would be carrying volumes of Bible in our Churches. Although the Bible was translated to Septuaginta and in Vulgate Latin from its original language, the essence and its truthfulness of the message never changed. Gravely misunderstood by Islam and the Iglesia ni Cristo is the Doctrine of Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.

Going back to the origin of the Bible, perhaps the very reason why non-Catholic preachers won't tell the truth about the Bible was because it would never give then any advantage at all. Acknowledging the Catholic Church's authority as the reason why we have a Bible today would be damaging to their career as ministers.

The Catholic Church through its Synods and Ecumenical Councils beginning from the Council of Jerusalem to the Second Vatican Council upheld all declared true teachings from the time of Jesus and the Apostles to this present age.

Such dishonesty in their part kept ignorant people from being properly enlightened. Somehow the ignorance of Catholics is a lucrative business. Teach them another gospel. Brainwash them. Teach them their subjective 'truth' that they are the real and the Catholic Church is the false. Use the dark history of the Church as their proof such as the Inquisition, enumerate the list of errant priests and nuns, add up some legendary stories to back up their brainwashing strategy, hate the Catholic Church and all its forms. Then convert them. Soon, these ignorant Catholics would be the fiercest anti-Catholics ever to be made! And they wouldn't accept any sound explanation as long as it's from the Catholic point of view.

The Devil is wise indeed.

Such was the style of the Iglesia ni Cristo in the Philippines.


Total Apostasy? A Hoax!

Whoever is believing in this hoax teaching, he too must believe that Christ is a liar. Of course, this isn't true. In fact, he's the Way, the Truth, and the Life says the Bible. If then, Christ isn't the liar, Felix must be! They can't be both saying the truth.

So is it true that Christ's Church completely, totally, wholly, entirely, fully, absolutely apostatized from the face of the earth and that nothing, no one, not even one, was on the side of truth and that the only person who had that TRUTH was Felix Manalo who was once a Catholic, once a Protestant, once an Agnostic, once an Atheist, and now an angel who could re-establish it back?

On the contrary, the Catholic Church which the Iglesia ni Cristo acknowledges to be the "Original Church of Christ established in Jerusalem, was part of history, is still part of the present and will be part of the future age.

If then they acknowledge the Catholic Church to be Christ's original Church (before apostatizing), what's their Bible verse that proves it WAS Christ Church indeed (before it apostatized).

We have Matthew 16 to prove that. "[And] you Simon son of Jonah, I will call you Peter and upon this rock, I will build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail against it."

(Although they tried their very best to prove that 'this rock' wasn't Peter but Jesus. Logically, how could Jesus refer to himself when he's directly talking to his subject who is Peter?)

What did Jesus said? The gates of hell "WILL NEVER" prevail against [his] Church. Grammatically, 'will' denotes future event and so it must be today while I am wriiting this article. That hell (nor any power of darkness-- not even a lie of Felix Manalo) WILL prevail against it [his Church]. Simple, yet they complicate it to suit their maliciousness.

Why?

It's because if their 'Total Apostasy' teaching is biblically unfounded, then the whole of Iglesia ni Cristo would crumble down and fall. If there is no apostasy, then there's no need for restoration. If there's no need for restoration, then there's no need for a Felix Manalo. And for sure, Felix Manalo would be begging for a cold soda while being roasted somewhere.

So the next time an Iglesia ni Cristo would introduce his cultist beliefs, try to roll up your sleeves, exert effort, do your homework, study, pray, research in your libraries, look for third party sources such as history books and encyclopedia, go to www.answers.com if you are in the net and read. When in doubt, ask an expert, a priest or someone who's not biased and open minded reliable source.

As a reminder from XCrusaders,

When a proper exegesis is done on all their claims, the INC is found to be nothing but another of a variety of pseudo- Christian churches which has drawn many people out of the true body. Examine them closely and do not be fooled. A lot depends on it!

Always remember, pray to the Holy Spirit before searching for truth.